User talk:Ed Poor

Connolley

I respect your scientific expertise, Dr. Connolley, but try to bear in mind that we are writing a neutral encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed 16:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to distinguish scientific and political debate and you're failing to. This will lead to meaninglessness. Voters don't get a vote on the science (indeed, as people are fond of saying (possibly inaccurately) no-one does). Lets stick to the science here, which is what Gavin meant I think. The evidence from TGGWS is that there isn't much to debate - otherwise why would they have to fake their data and mislead Wunsch? If they are interested in having a proper debate on solar variation vs T, why didn't they show the up to date figure presented in fig 1 of Damon and Laut? Please provide a considered answer to this question William M. Connolley 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would, but I just promised Raymond to stay out of climate. Cheers! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was looking for. You ought to provide an answer here. Are you interested in this stuff or not? Or you can just be interested in the politics but not the science if you want - its not obligatory William M. Connolley 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, with Raymond's permission I'll leave you with this. I am interested in both the science and politics of global warming.

Partisans on both sides have been sloppy, but just as you side with AGW, I side against it on similar grounds. You are convinced that scientific evidence supports AGW; I'm convinced scientific evidence support natural warming.

I've been following a lot of scientific issues over the years, such as nuclear power safety, enviornmental carcinogens, DDT, etc., and frequently found out that the media hype is contradicted by the calm reasoning power of science a few years later.

I had hoped that Wikipedia, by remaining neutral on scientific controversies, would enable each political side to learn a bit about the other viewpoint. That way fence-straddlers might actually learn something. With nothing harder than high school math, it's easy to see who's using the statistics correctly.

But I am disappointed, because apparently the logic and math of science is way over the heads of the average (literate!) person. Why, the idea that a hypothesis is tested indirectly by deriving inferences and testing those isn't even part of our scientific method article. Why? Too much logic? A => B. If not B, then not A. I've known that since grade school.

So, I'm off again. Enjoy your work . . . --Uncle Ed 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks, Ed, for your comments on my user page. I don't know if you followed the arguments that led up to that discussion but I totally agree with your comment re: starting a quarrel about whether someone is quarrelsome. Those guys have knocked it off for the time being but I expect that as soon as I have something to add to one of the pages they have ownership issues with, that the accusations will start again ... sigh. csloat 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag bombing

Tag bombing articles [1] that run against your personal bent is not constructive editing, Ed. Why am I not surprised this is exactly what you chose to do after creating that tag? FeloniousMonk 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to agree, and say that I will revert all uses of this tag by you from now on.JQ 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "tag bombing" is, and what FeloniousMonk meant by the phrase "run against your personal bent".

Pointing out weasel words is within policy, isn't it? How is it "not constructive" to request attribution for a phrase like "has been criticized as"? FM himself has recently fixed a number of articles which I tagged or used Wikipedia:text move on.

I hope this wasn't done in a spirit of "there wasn't really a problem, see how wrong your previous edit was?" but rather in a collegial, "oh yes, I see the problem you pointed out, and now I've fixed it". --Uncle Ed 02:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The tag was misused in Steven Milloy. If you'd read the article in full you'd see that all the criticisms were attributed. If you want it to be useful, be less indiscriminate in its application.JQ 03:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps you're saying that unattributed claims are okay in the intro, provided they are attributed further down, in the body of the article? --Uncle Ed 03:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that. An intro is supposed to cover main points. But if you want to fill the intro with links, feel free.JQ 04:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

1. FeloniousMonk, I applied the tag to whatever articles came up in Google when I searched for specific "phrases to avoid" listed at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.
2. If you'll check my contribs, you'll see that very few of these touched on issues that you and I are disputing (assuming that's what you meant by "ideological bent").
3. However, you pointed out elsewhere that you feel there is a "pejorative" connotation to the phrase "weasel words" and that on this basis you objected to my tagging phrases with it.
4. But I hardly went on a "bombing run" with the tag, nor did I target any particular target. I simply Googled.
5. Accusing me of making edits according to an "ideological bent" is not civil. It has the effect of intimidating me, which (assuming good faith) I'm sure was not your intent. But it made me think long and hard when the 6th tag in a row I placed just happened to be one of your hot button topics. I was afraid you would accuse me falsely of abusing the tag or something like that. Which it turns out is just what you did!
6. Please be civil, and tell me WHY you object to an edit BEFORE accusing me of 'violating the rules'. In other words, don't smack me with a 'clue stick' - just clue me in. --Uncle Ed 13:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Format breaking

Hate to tell you this, but you've killed the formatting of the Jonathan Sarfati article. Don't put carriage returns after references - the Wiki software interprets them as paragraph breaks. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not correct. I'm a computer programmer and (usually) very careful about the results that my coding produces.

I added some MORE carriage returns (CR) and inspected the HTML produced by them. The Wiki software did not interpret them as paragraph breaks.

Two CR's in a row, however, will produce a paragraph break. Maybe that's what you meant? If so, please point it out. --Uncle Ed 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. So it seems. But it's an awfully choppy-looking article. Perhaps we needs to combine it up into paragraphs? Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The article itself needs a lot of work, with paragraph breaks being one factor. Generally, we start a new paragraph when introducing a new aspect of a topic or if it just "looks too long". We don't want to intimidate the reader, but make it easy for them to find the information they are looking for. (We can't assume they'll read the whole thing from beginning to end.)

Let's discuss an outline at the article's talk page. --Uncle Ed 13:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 16:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed

I just put a bit of Father's speech on my homepage so that whenever anyone wikistalks me it will count as a reading. :-) Steve Dufour 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, don't both you and the other person have to be present? --Uncle Ed 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only if the guidelines are strictly interpreted. :-) Steve Dufour 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Ed Poor: welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Wikipedia:Introduction
• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Frequently Asked Questions
  • How do you edit a page?
  • How do you revert to a previous version of a page?
  • What about copyrights?
• Community Portal

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk (discussion) page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!   - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sense of humor

Good to see[2] -- all too rare around here! Raymond Arritt 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS

Ed - TGGWS ended up protected due to edit warring over "polemic". It was nice and stable until you barged in and changed it. Why exactly do you see yourself as having good reason to overthrow the decision reached in [3]? It really is not at all helpful William M. Connolley 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to do a self-revert on request. Which version do you want to back to? --Uncle Ed 20:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, a version before you restarted the edit war would be best. I see you've done it - thanks William M. Connolley 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK to move thread to your Talk page?

Hello Uncle Ed. User:Blueboar appears confident that the thread you started (and I joined) was not correctly placed on Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/FAQ. I'm not sure that you agree, but if you do, how about if we move that thread here, to your Talk page? Then I would leave a pointer from the original location to here. If this sounds like a bad idea, no need to respond. Thanks. EdJohnston 01:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? --Uncle Ed 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it okay to use verifiable sources which support one side of a controversy?

A thread was moved here from Wikipedia talk:Attribution/FAQ because User:Blueboar argued that it didn't belong in that department. Though I'm not fully tuned in to where this would belong, I offered to move the thread here and Uncle Ed agreed. Pointer was left in the original location. See [4] for the original location. EdJohnston 02:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Suppose there is a scientific matter which is the object of hot debate (in newspapers, on TV, in political campaigns). One side says that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of a certain idea which lends primary support to a policy the side is advocating.

• Along come several Wikipedians who quote the same sources the "side" quotes, particularly the side's claim to enjoy near-unanimous scientific support.
• Is it correct for articles to say that the "idea" has near-unanimous scientific support or a "scientific consensus"?
  1. Should article state that (side A) says they enjoy overwhelming, near-unanimous or "consensus" support from scientists?
  2. Should articles and article titles say or imply that side A really does have that much support?
• Is it POV-pushing to:
  1. State that side A's scientific idea is a matter of scientific consensus?
  2. State that side A's scientific idea is "disputed" within the scientific community?
  3. State that it is unclear how much scientific support there is for side A's idea?

How about changing articles and their titles so that they do not state the degree to which the idea enjoys scientific support? In other words, just list scientists and scientific bodies and their positions on the matter. --Uncle Ed 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your questions are impossible to answer without specifics... it often depends on how what the topic is, how strong the scientific consensus is or is not, and the nature of any disagreement. To put it simply, we should not claim consensus that isn't there... but if there is a clear consensus then yes we should note that. You are really talking about NPOV and FRINGE issues... which have their own policy pages. Blueboar 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This type of issue has come up on the talk pages of Evolution, William G. Tifft, Retrocausality and in many other articles affected by fringe science. It might be instructive to collect some of the carefully-worded compromises that people have come up with. We really do need to state the degree to which the idea enjoys scientific support in many of these cases. I don't think we can dodge the issue in a 'He said, she said' fashion. One article wanted to say that a certain position was 'totally ignored' by mainstream scientists, but it turns out to be impossible to find citations to support such bald formulations. They have to be carefully worded. EdJohnston 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Evolution... there is indeed such an overwhelming consensus in favor of one side that we have to mention it in the article. However, please note that almost all "he said, she said" issues are the realm of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, and really are not issues for this policy page. Try asking again on those pages. Blueboar 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not in Evolution itself - he said it came up on the talk page. I'm not sure what that means, but I think it's common knowledge that 99.8% of biologists support the theory of evolution. So EdJohnston must be referring to something else. Please don't dismiss our questions. --Uncle Ed 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dismiss your questions, I'm mearly pointing out that this isn't the right venue to ask them. It's like going to the Department of Motor Vehicles to discuss your Tax Audit... different departments. This policy is about the need for verification and the need to avoid original research... neither of which (as near as I can tell) are issues in your questions. Did I miss something? Blueboar 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to smile, because this is exactly what I'm talking about! Last week a friend went to the Department of Motor Vehicles to renew an expired driver's license. He had not driven in over 2 years. After waiting in line for over an hour, he finally got to the window where they issue the learner's permit. Only then was he told that his old driver's license and passport was not sufficient to identify him. They had his social security number on file, but the bureaucracy requires you to show your social security card

So he had to go to another office and this time wait 3 hours, because he had lost his social security card!

This story sheds light on the question I'm asking. My friend wanted permission to drive a car. There was something he didn't know, i.e., that he'd have to get his lost social security card replaced. He thought that DMV should have told him that! (The attitude of the clerk was that it's not their job.)

Question: When there's a dispute over whether one side in a political issue is supported by a "scientific consensus", how do we write about this?

1. Do we 'agree' with the side that says that "the science is settled" or that there is a "scientific consensus", and state this as a fact in the article?
2. Do we avoid agreeing or disagreeing with either side, and just say that SIDE A says their position is supported a scientific consensus?
3. Do we describe what SIDE B says, if they disgree with Side A about whether there is a scientific consensus?

In case you can't imagine what I could possibly have in mind, I'm thinking of any of several environmental controversies like the use of DDT to prevent malaria transmission by mosquitoes; asbestos abatement; fluoridation; global warming; etc. --Uncle Ed 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In your original posting, you asked when we could declare that a certain viewpoint was the scientific consensus. I think that *every one* of the five numbered assertions that you included in your original question would be too difficult to find citations for in an actual WP article. To see an example where people were trying to document the degree of consensus, look at the debate on William G. Tifft. EdJohnston 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Example: Here is a line that someone proposed to include in the William G. Tifft article:

"Tifft’s redshift quantization, as well as other intrinsic redshift theories, are still occasionally cited, though other cosmologists note that Tifft and his results have been nearly totally ignored.[8][9]." (underline is in the original).

Here is what other editors said in response:

Now, to me, your suggestion reads as original research because Tifft's research is not "still occasionally" cited. The point is that in the community, his work is basically dismissed out-of-hand. The majority of people who work on problems related to redshift distributions out-and-out ignore Tifft's ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 21 December, 2006.

<...> If what you claim about Tifft's work is so, you need to provide some citations that say those things. Without the citations, encyclopedia editors will dismiss your claims. Lou Sander 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the other editors refused to accept any generalizations about the degree to which Tifft's ideas were ignored by the mainstream, unless that was proved in some way. I believe that should still be our rule. Documenting that something is fringe, and documenting that something is mainstream, are two forms of the same issue. It still takes hard work to do either one, but it is not impossible. EdJohnston 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Ed, I do not know if you got a chance to watch the entire documentary. You are can find it on YouTube here: The Great Global Warming Swindle [5] Best wishes.RonCram 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ron, I started to watch it the other day. It looked really good, but I got distracted and only watched the first few minutes. Anyway, I like reading better. --Uncle Ed 16:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

LIA

Ed, there is talk for you on the t:LIA. If you're going to POV-tag it, please try to answer William M. Connolley 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mother! <grin>

OK, thanks William M. Connolley 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Asbestos and the law

Ed', I modified the intro to this article a little in view of your comment. When you get a chance, have a look and see what you think, ok? Cheers, Wikityke 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Turning off the HagermanBot

Try User:HagermanBot/OptOut. Raymond Arritt 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to be careful, though. I would only want it turned off for a few minutes at a time - as when adding to the glossary of abbrev's on that talk page. If I forgot to turn it back on, this could bother other contributors. Anyway, thanks for letting me know about opt-out. --Uncle Ed 15:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yo, Ed

Do we know each other from some other forum? Skyemoor 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm daring (or foolish) enough to use my real name. --Uncle Ed 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

response

I don't see any point in editing an article that is owned by an administrator who thinks himself above Wikipedia rules--too much risk given the power differential, and the Skyemoor remark makes me realize that I'm also risking someone writing a false hit piece about my Wikipedia edits given the sensitivity of this particular subject. If you want to navigate the dispute resolution process so that abusive editors are disciplined, I'll add my name and my personal experience. -- TedFrank 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you promise? It's a difficult undertaking to go through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, but I'm willing to do it if you'll back me. I think the first step is:

• Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

If we've tried that, it's time to climb the ladder to the next step:

• Disengage for a while

I've tried that, but it doesn't seem to work, so:

• Further dispute resolution may be necessary

This used to involve a 'Request for comment', but that might have changed recently; I have some studying to do. --Uncle Ed 22:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly within your rights to go to RFC. Do keep in mind the notice at WP:RFC that "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors", especially in light of your current status. Raymond Arritt 22:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh it's noisy in here. Are you suggesting I'm not a steady enough supporter of NPOV? All I want is for articles to step back and refrain from drawing conclusions about conflicting views; to permit all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one; to refrain studiously from stating which is better; and to leave reader to form their own opinions. What's so bad about that? --Uncle Ed 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Scientific data archiving

Please take a look at this Talk page, especially the part on "pseudoscience" and William's reverts. The POV of certain editors is preventing them from objectively dealing with the facts. The concepts involved are not difficult but they do take a little investment of time to understand. You may need to spend some time in the Pseudoscience article to be fully comfortable. I hope you are able to find the time to help out. Thanks! RonCram 14:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, okay, but let's get the terminology straight before I start. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be "objective" but "neutral". Do you know what the difference is? --Uncle Ed 15:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I was talking about the editors involved, not the article. People have to be objective in order to rightly consider the facts and the citations. The articles are supposed to present the facts and citations in a balanced and neutral POV, meaning that readers are allowed to go to the sources and make up their own minds. Does that help? RonCram 15:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the latter half of that. Article should be neutral, as I pointed out with much moaning and groaning in Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view (see diff here) But is it really necessary to be "objective"? And if so, what can we do if two editors each claim to be objective while asserting opposite "facts"?

Say rather that Dr. C and I disagree on what the facts are because then we can "agree to disagree". It is not objectivity per se but the agreement to disagree which allows an article to be neutral. --Uncle Ed 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first edit on this article...compare this to my first one.  ;-) --Stephan Schulz 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! --Uncle Ed 11:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, by objective I do not mean that editors have no point of view. I do not even think that is possible. I mean only that they are able to see facts for what they are - facts. Unfortunately, instead of acknowledging the facts or seeking to provide mitigating facts of their own to provide balance, some editors simply delete the material because it offends their world view and they do not want readers to have access to these facts. Regarding the similarity between your first edit and Stephan's, it is remarkable. I provided citations initially, but it seems strange to do so because the evidence for the polcies is in the article itself. The article quotes the policies of NSF, Nature and Science journals. The concept of data archiving is new to many editors, including the ones who should know and abide by the policies. Reading the Talk page is most informative on this. The statement that most journals do not enforce the policies was added by William Connelly and is probably true but is OR. William has not attempted to provide a citation. The "weasel words" were written by me. If you can read the article I cited and come up with a better way to say it, it would be welcome. Thanks for contributing! RonCram 15:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, by the way, the best version of the article can be found here. [6] Please look at this version to see all of the issues involved.RonCram 17:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, it seems the Intro was creating a misunderstanding. Please take a look at the best version now and comment on the Talk page. The best version is here.[7]RonCram 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I responded to your comment on my User Talk page. Just giving you a heads up. RonCram 16:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitchens

Ed, I think it was a little unfair for you to encourage me to explain my arguments in the sandbox and utilize that for testing out new versions of that section there, and then for you to go ahead and butcher the section in the actual article without even trying to modify the version in the sandbox nor to respond to the discussion there. csloat 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Want me to self-revert so it doesn't "count against you" in terms of WP:3RR? --Uncle Ed 11:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oops, I can't; you beat me to it. [8] Okay, I owe you one free self-revert. Fair enough?

Thanks, Ed. csloat 19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of WMC's reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Global warming, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Raymond Arritt 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not deliberate, and I already offered to self-revert. Why tag-bomb my page? Check my contribs instead. I'm not a newbie. Sheesh! --Uncle Ed 16:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad Revert?

Good grief. You claim to intentionally revert to what you claim is the wrong version? How on earth is that a good faith thing to do? Why would you do that? --Blue Tie 16:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're new here (11 June 2006) so I'll explain. Or you're a sock (oldtimer who started a new account), in which case I dunno what to say.

1. When there is a dispute, an admin (as I once was a long while back) will revert "without prejudice" to a previous version. We jokingly call this "the wrong version" as the choice will never satisfy anyone. I was careful to pick a version other than my own.
2. Then I had second thoughts, because I spotted Raul's removal of the pov-check tag. I assumed if he was satisfied, that was good enough. So I reverted to his version instead.

I'm not trying to win a fight here. Just pick a version and continue from there. The last thing I want is an edit war.

Well at least I understand. And I accept your sense of good faith! --Blue Tie 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

GW intro

Ed, for reasons that are unclear, you reverted to a version of the intro that I consider to be stupid, viz Although global warming has occurred in the past, according to the Energy Information Agency, the term is most often used to refer to the warming some scientists predict will occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. The ref to the EIA is out of place in the intro - there is no reason to pick them out as a source, it looks dumb. Also the sentence is now ambiguous - do you mean the EIA says it has occured in the past; or the EIA says it most often used to, or what? This version is clearly inferior to the one that has been stable for ages and won the article its FA status William M. Connolley 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pick any version you prefer, I'm easy-going. I was trying to go back to the pre-blue era.

Ed, this is appalling - you revert to a version you refuse to defend. You say you were trying to get back to pre-Blue (good) but what you actually do is restore his version. Am I to take you seriously? Please fix this William M. Connolley 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But your references to stable or FA status are meaningless. The article has serious neutrality problems, in that it tends to endorse the UN view. It also implies (or outright states) that a "majority" of scientists endorse the AGW theory, but without citing any polls. (The editorial by Oreskes is interesting, but is itself disputed by Peiser. Do you want the article to endorse her literature search?) --Uncle Ed 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both statements by WMC and Poor Uncle Ed. See my comments on an article re-format (and possible re-write) on the talk page. --Blue Tie 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy now?

[9] William M. Connolley 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's precisely the sort of thing I had in mind when I posted this (see diff). :-( --Uncle Ed 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that supposed to help? Since you're editing against RA all that does is call him a monster William M. Connolley 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Exact opposite of what I meant:

I think what N was trying to tell me is that in telling others their behaviour is wrong I run I risk of drifting into bad behaviour myself.

• By telling other editors they are "editing badly" I can wind up making bad edits.

And by falsely accusing other fine, upstanding human beings who are doing their best - of being monsters - I would become a monster myself.

So in a way, I agree with you: I should not be calling other people monsters. But posting the N-reminder was purely meant as a goad to myself: a reminder to stop being so dadratted self-righteous around here, like I'm NPOVier than thou.

I'm just a man, William. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(You may even have a belly-button.) -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you are. Lets leave N out of it and return to RA being driven away, shall we? This has happened principally because of the likes of Blue Tie William M. Connolley 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Exact quote, and close translation, of Friedrich Nietzsche

Wer mit Ungeheuern kampft, mag zusehn,   daß er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird.
Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst,   blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.
And when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Enjoy... -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

Hello! I was reported as having violated 3rr Here. This is my first known instance of policy violation. I feel badly about it. No action was taken but I still feel badly about it. I was cited as having reverted you 2007-03-25T13:33:44 here as an unmarked partial rv of [10]. I specifically apologize to you for the error and the angst. Though there was no action taken, I have voluntarily blocked myself from editing wikipedia articles and talk pages for 24 hours from the date that this notice was filed on the 3rr board. --Blue Tie 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's okay. I barely even noticed that. Consider yourself fully absolved. :-) --Uncle Ed 13:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There was one more [2007-03-25T17:16:19 here though I think in that latter case, I was probably unaware of reverting you. There was some discussion on the 3rr that these were the same and they look like it to me. Something odd happened there. But again I apologize. --Blue Tie 14:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, it's okay. Just take it to the talk page from now on. If your contribution is reverted more than once, it's a sign of instability - in the the article, not in you. <grin>

We all aim (or should aim) for a clear and neutral explanation of the topic. Oh, yes, it's nice if it can be accurate, too. But when there's disagreement on what the "facts" are, should we try to make the article choose among the competing views of "fact" or what? --Uncle Ed 14:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is unhelpfully vague. Give an example of competing facts William M. Connolley 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That, on the other hand, is helpfully clear! I have to leave my desk for a while, but I *will* reply soon. --Uncle Ed 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I began to answer that question at Talk:Global warming controversy - see 'warming up' section. --Uncle Ed 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you did, really -its still regretably fact-free. See my comments there William M. Connolley 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In my mailbox

I'm on the Independent Institute's mailing list, and they sent me this commentary, which fits your interests more than mine. -- TedFrank 00:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's put Singer's ideas into an article. Can you help me do this? --Uncle Ed 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I leave that to others. I'm on deadline for a couple of pieces, and don't really want to spend time getting personally attacked for the quixotic task of fixing POV problems in global warming articles, given the view of several administrators that NPOV doesn't apply to global warming discussion, and the fact that another admin threatened to ban me for participating in the discussion. -- TedFrank 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI Violations?

Ed, I am trying to get more information to see if it is a Conflict of Intrest violation for an Environmental Activist/Green Party member to be actavly editing pages that have to do with Environmental issues. Your thoughts?--Zeeboid 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably no more of a conflict than for British Antarctic Survey member William Connolley (User:William Connolley) to edit. Call me crazy, but I have consistently lobbied for experts like Dr. C to be able to contribute to Wikipedia. (My only issue with William is that often his edits aren't neutral; other than that, I'm glad he's here.) --Uncle Ed 22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WMC is net positive value to WP rather than perfect. But I couldn't claim perfect for myself either: could you? --BozMo talk 08:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am under the belief that POV pushing is the biggest thing hurting wikipedia's respectibility more then anything else, as vandilism can be easialy seen and corrected. I have just never known an Activist to maintain a NPOV.--Zeeboid 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One is not usually called upon to make a public self-assessment like that. I am, as you know, on probation for "tendentious editing ... and POV-pushing". Who am I to disagree with the arbcom? Perhaps I have a blind spot when it comes to global warming and intelligent design and Communist genocide.

On the other hand, I think it would help if Wikipedia would not endorse either the liberal or conservative positions on these three issues. If this is "POV", so be it.

My contention is as follows:

1. Wikipedia articles on those three topics are biased in favor of liberal POV.
2. They should not be.
3. Corrections should be made to them, such as:
   • Describing points of view other than the Liberal POV.
   • It is not "POV-pushing" to add well-referenced 'statements of fact' which disagree with the majority, provided that these additions are not portrayed as being more widely held than they really are

Is it "tendentious" to add to an article on China, the claim made by some sources that Mao Zedong murdered 20 to 60 million Chinese civilians? Is there a way to label this claim properly, e.g., as 'a minority view'? Or is adding the claim at all a violation of Wikipedia rules? --Uncle Ed 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that you believe there are inherently "liberal" or "conservative" positions on scientific issues such as global warming and evolution is a very large part of the problem. It colors your whole outlook. Raymond Arritt 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the "inherently" part of that, but everyone knows that US voters are split 50-50 on the issue. Even liberal Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe has said so: 23% of Republicans accept AGW while 75% of Democrats do.

Or were you not referring to political disagreements about the science? Or do you think that all scientists are utterly impartial and objective? Or what? Your comment above was unclear. --Uncle Ed 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Take out "inherently" if you wish. Physical reality is independent of the observer, except in the relativistic limit. Raymond Arritt 01:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I am enjoying learning from you. --Blue Tie 19:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And I as well. --Skyemoor 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Shifting ground

How about "Nothing is better than a perfect life and a ham sandwich is better than nothing ergo a ham sandwich is better than a perfect life"? --BozMo talk 08:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Lack of Brains Hinders Research" ~ UBeR 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

William's actions elsewhere

Ed Poor, can you please inform William of his misbehavior at History of the Yosemite area‎. He is persistently vandalizing the page by removing a valid {{unreferenced}} template, despite the fact I contacted him and talked about it on the article talk page. He's been persistent and is engaging in an edit war. I can't do this by myself... ~ UBeR 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Don't worry about Uber. He's getting forgetful: [11] William M. Connolley 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ed, this another problem. The administrators here don't care to look at edits or behavior. Foremost on their decision making is whether this person holds status or not. Obviously Wikipedia asks us not to look at the editor, but rather the edits. This is obviously very rarely followed by fellow administrators, which is a unfortunate reality. Obviously, WP:ATT Fully supports my actions, but William here is encroaching on the very policies that try to keep Wikipedia stable, and administrators care not for such behavior if an administrator is doing it. I know you are a level-headed member of Wikipedia, Ed, so hopefully you can look past the appeals to authority and look at what's really going on. ~ UBeR 23:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on probation, you want me to risk getting blocked over this? Hmm... --Uncle Ed 03:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of this. Nevermind this. ~ UBeR 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you working on the Conservapedia Page?

As one of the users you banned, I was wondering if you had something to add to the Conservapedia page? As a sysop on their site, I'm sure you are uniquely suited to edit the Wikipedia page and look for opportunities to add content. Menkatopia 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not vandalise our project templates.

Thank you. —David Levy 01:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

! Duh, it's April Fool's Day. Lighten up. --Uncle Ed 01:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is prohibited 365 days per non-leap year and 366 days per leap year. —David Levy 01:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I'll go self-revert it. Sheesh. --Uncle Ed 01:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Already taken care of. —David Levy 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well I'll go revert my self-revert. Happy AFD! --Uncle Ed 01:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —David Levy 02:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, for how long? 5 1/2 years? That's how long I've been a Wikipedian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 2:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Take a look at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page for consensus on what is and isn't ok on April Fools Day. -- Chuq 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, and you used to be a "senior admin." Neither includes the authority to ignore policy and do whatever one pleases. —David Levy 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

CMU

Yep, I got my PhD there in 2001. Phiwum 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

framing merg proposal

Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your input please?

You gave great input some time ago in the JW articles, I was hoping you could help with a comment or more at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. It is a content question and a dispassionate POV would help us determine if certain information is OR or not. George 07:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry for the lack of patience. George 01:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Take more care

You badly messed up my talk page - please be more careful next time. I am aware of your concerns, which is why I am using the talk pages on those articles. However I felt the edits you made were not appropriate according to the general style of the pages. You also need to be more specific with your concerns and what it is you believe you want. John Smith's 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your talk page and I'd like you to explain why you reverted my changes to Geisha and Mizuage. If you have already done so, please provide a link so I can see your response. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Prostitution

Hi Ed. Do you think this is necessary? --Guinnog 18:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I misread the article history. I saw rvv in the entry below mine and mistook that for a reversion of my last edit. I will now remove the POV-check tag from Prostitution.

But you might want to look at the POV disputes at Geisha and Mizuage concerning claims that apprentices' virginity was (or was not) sold. --Uncle Ed 18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I have no problem with what you added to the article, which was why I was so surprised. Hope you agree with my refinement. --Guinnog 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Geographical context

Hi there. Would you have time to discuss this edit where you changed my addition of the word (and link) to USA? My feeling there was that the lead section was not telling non-US people which country the book was written and published in. Do you agree that a reference to USA or American (possibly not linked) in the lead of that article is needed? Some people say that people can find out where Boston is by clicking on the link, but I think that puts too much of a burden on the reader. An article needs to be self-contained up to a point, and key facts need to be presented to the reader, rather than leaving them to go off and find out for themselves. Imagine a reader who didn't know these basic facts - you are expecting them to click every other link to find out the context - which would disrupt their reading of the article. What do you think? Carcharoth 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Non-US people know that they are not American and are quite capable of discovering where cities like Boston are. In case someone might not have heard of a city as famous as Boston has been throughouth the last couple of centuries of world history, its article is only one click away.

It demeans the reader - particularly the non-US reader for whom you profess so much concern - to even hint that they might not know how to find out where Boston is or that they might be unaware that this web site is largely an American undertaking. Computers are chiefly an American invention, the Internet *is* an American invention, this web site is hosted in Florida (which everyone knows is in America).

Lastly, links do not place a burden on the reader but actually make it easier to read an article. By taking out extraneous information. Your argument ad absurdum is incorrect in this case. The reader does not have to click 50% of the links to find out the context (and I've told you a million times not to exaggerate! ;-) of the article. Did you have to click on any of the four links I placed in this answer to understand what I was saying? Of course not.

A hyperlinked encyclopedia gives the reader a chance to find out as much (or as little) as they want about any topic they choose. And as a writer who has been here longer than 99.9% of all registered users, I thank you for your interest in making Wikipedia even better than it is. This is no small matter, even though it's about one tiny change. It's all about how we work together to serve the reader. :-) --Uncle Ed 10:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the edit, but your reasoning leaves a lot to be desired. Wikipedia is not "largely an American undertaking". Even the English Wikipedia has significant non-American contributors. You might want to talk about the likes of Alan Turing and Konrad Zuse about computers. And while the internet is an American invention, the World Wide Web is a a European one. Moreover, we do have a NPOV policy and actively try to avoid systemic bias, not encourage it. --Stephan Schulz 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Babbage as well as Turing and Zuse. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. "Anglo-American", then. Turing and Charles Babbage were Englishmen. It has no bearing on my point. But thanks for constantly watching my talk page, it's flattering to have puppies and scientists as friends! :-) --Uncle Ed 14:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Blah blah blah" is a little rude, don't you think? And Zuse was German, as was Wilhelm Schickard who predates the whole lot thus far listed. The point is that multiple people from multiple countries contributed to the development of the computer as we know it, and to call it "an American invention" or "an Anglo-American" invention, is not only inaccurate, its biased - one might almost say bigoted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I was speaking in IM; please forgive me for lapsing out of polite prose. This sure was a long discussion over an edit that Carcharoth didn't even want to change! --Uncle Ed 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Boston article says: "Boston is the capital and most populous city of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, USA." - by your logic, there is no need for the USA there. So you would require people to first click on Boston, and then click on Massachusetts, to find out where Boston is. That is annoying, and a balance has to be struck. Let's try an example: "In March 1968 Jerry Rawlings was posted to Takoradi in the Western Region..." The amount of detail in that sentence depends on the context. In an article about Ghana, you might have already mentioned Ghana. In another article, you might be mentioning Rawlings as an aside, so you might need to give some geographical context. Let me give you another example of context. Some facts about James I of England could be arranged in the following ways:

• James I was born Duke of Albany and Duke of Rothesay a year before being crowned King of Scots and Lord of the Isles. In 1603, he was crowned King of England and King of Ireland. In Scotland, he succeeded Mary, Queen of Scots, and in England he succeeded Elizabeth I. He was succeeded by Charles I. Both James and Henry Stuart (Lord Darnley) were Dukes of Albany. The next Duke of Albany after James was Charles. James was Duke of Rothesay from birth as the heir apparent to the Scottish throne, until he became King of Scotland. The previous heir apparent and Duke of Rothesay had been James Stewart, the eldest legitimate son of James V of Scotland. The next Duke of Rothesay after James was Henry Stuart.

• James I, King of Great Britain, of the House of Stuart was born Duke of Albany and Duke of Rothesay in 1566, a year before being crowned (as James VI) King of Scots and Lord of the Isles in 1567. Thirty-six years later, in 1603, he was crowned (as James I) King of England and King of Ireland, uniting all three countries in a personal union. In Scotland, he succeeded his mother Mary, Queen of Scots, and in England he succeeded his mother's half-sister Elizabeth I. The personal union as King of Great Britain was continued by his second son and successor, Charles I. Both James and his father Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley and King-consort of Scotland, were Dukes of Albany, James from birth until he became King of Scotland a year later, and his father from when he married James's mother, Mary, in 1565 until his murder two years later in 1567 at the age of 21, less than a year after the birth of their son James. The next Duke of Albany after James was James's second son, Charles. James was Duke of Rothesay from birth as the heir apparent to the Scottish throne, until he became King of Scotland. The previous male heir apparent and Duke of Rothesay had been James Stewart, the eldest legitimate son of James's maternal grandfather James V of Scotland (1512-1542). James Stewart died in 1541 just before his first birthday. The next Duke of Rothesay after James was Henry Stuart, James's eldest son who died of typhoid fever at the age of eighteen.

Now, as a Wikipedian who has been here for whatever-and-a-half years, I don't need to explain this to you, so I'll let you read the two and see what the context does for you. Would you prefer to run around following the links from the first example to get the context (such as the familial relationships and the relevant years), or read a self-contained article that gives you the relevant, contextual information right there on the page where you need it? Carcharoth 14:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Water. Horses. *sigh* Another failure. Did you come for a discussion, or just to shoot and leave? You missed my main point, which is about the proper place to hit the user with the clue stick. I specifically mentioned the Boston article as the right place to tell users what country it's in, and you pretend that "my logic" dictates removing it from the very place I said users would look for it in. Yet another reason to abandon this madhouse. (I would go read The Inmates Are Running The Asylum, but that's actually a rant about software design.) --Uncle Ed 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is funny. I think I'm beginning to feel the same way about you that you do about me. How shall we get through to each other? The point about context is that it depends on the article. In some places it is appropriate to not mention that Boston is in the USA, in other places it is. I feel that in the Duckling story, it is important to clue the reader in up front that this is an American author writing a story set in the USA. As for how long you want to discuss this, I'm happy to keep going for a while yet. Comparisons to a madhouse is just water off a duck's back to me. :-) Or to put it another way, which article is the correct one to tell readers which country Make Way for Ducklings is set in? The Boston article or the book article? Carcharoth 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved. Remind not to prod you again. You seem rather irritable! :-) Carcharoth 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The point of the book is that grown-ups went to great lengths (not to say absurd lengths) to "be kind to our web-footed friends". What country in the Anglo-American sphere this took place is hardly of importance. Does anyone really care what country Little Black Sambo took place? The point is that the kid turned the tiger into butter; it doesn't matter whether he was African or Indian. --Uncle Ed 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Which is why I pointed out the country of first publication, not where it was set. Carcharoth 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Though your Black Sambo example is interesting. Written by a Scot living in India, it is not said in the article where it was published. Scotland? India? England? Who bought and read the book? Indians? English? Americans? Questions, questions. OK. I'll leave your talk page in peace and return to the communal spaces of the asylum. Thanks for the illuminating discussion. Carcharoth 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pov phrase

The template you created, Pov phrase, has been nominated for deletion. Please comment on the TfD page. Thanks. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You seem a bit of a kindred spirit to me vis a vis seeing POV in adjective choice, sentence balance, and placement, as well as believing minority views must have fair, not disparaging or absent mention. Particularly frustrating for me today, but then I read something or other which leads me to your user page and this: "Don't expect too much - Wikipedia is only 6 years old and is about as mature as a schoolboy of the same age. Give it time. Ahh...phewwwww...that feels better. Thank you. That really helped me today. Joevanisland 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed

You might get a laugh out of this: Betting on global warming :-) Steve Dufour 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Hi, Uncle Ed. Lest I be continuously accused of canvassing, I just wish to simply inform you of a complaint over an issue I care deeply about, here. I know you have participated in global warming and have had interaction with both myself and said "bureaucrat," and I believe your judgment on this issue will be conducive and fair. Any comments you have are appreciated. Thank you. ~ UBeR 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Uncle Ed. ~ UBeR 03:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your editor review

Hello. I have noticed your editor reviewi n the back log. To get other editors to review you, you need to put the entry of your page on Wikipedia:Editor review main page. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 18:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Crazy Bastard

I wonder: Am I the only one at Wikipedia to have a personal award named after him?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ed_Poor_barnstar.svg#filelinks

Only one I've noticed. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite! Template:The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx

Do you want to perhaps leave some comments on the talk page explaining why its POV? Just because we have to remain neutral doesn't mean we have to give equal weight to widely discredited accusations of forgery.Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So much misinformation

I just came over to get some info on the author of Rogue Warrior, but there were so many mistakes in the Dick Marcinko article that I got distracted. What kind of a reference forces you to correct it before you use it? --Uncle Ed 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the clean-up on the Marcinko article!Mike Searson 00:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Raging_helen.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Raging_helen.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigrTex 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Status of Wikipedia:WikiProject quality

Hello. While going through Category:Inactive WikiProjects I ran across the page Wikipedia:WikiProject quality, which you created in October 2005. The page has been inactive since then and, to me, looks more like an essay than a WikiProject. Would you mind {{db-author}}ing, userfying it, or letting me know if I have missed something? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you choose to tag it with {{db-author}} or userfy it, would you also take care of Wikipedia:Quality, which is currently a redirect to the project page. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia is liberal

If Conservapedia is conservative, why does it not allow the use of the word "fag"? While I admit Wikipedia is liberal, Conservapedia is ten times as liberal. Any truly consevrative website would encourage homophobia and the use of homophobic slurs, so the site is very liberal. Clavern 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Very true. -Icewedge 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That comes across as ignorant. StaticElectric 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ed poor head.bmp listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ed poor head.bmp, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject quality

Hi. As you userfied that page, perhaps you will also want to userfy Wikipedia:Quality. It is currently a redirect to the deleted page, but there are numerous versions you can revert to. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. --Uncle Ed 22:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many cooks

Bittersweet YouTube video Wiki-Man. --Uncle Ed 22:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It took me a long time to figure it out, but I finally got it. Our writing project scaled rather well until it finally collapsed under its own weight. Too many cooks spoils the broth. --Uncle Ed 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cat out of the bag?

I think [12] is a bit of a give-away William M. Connolley 09:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Giving away what? That I only understand science when it's expressed in the form of theories which can be checked against facts? I'm not neutral about science vs. pseudoscience. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should be? If so, let's discuss it and come up with a new Wikipedia:Science policy. --Uncle Ed 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant, as to what you'd write when unconstrained William M. Connolley 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Citizendium link is to an unapproved draft. Larry Sanger called it one-sided and biased. Unlike Wikipedia, Citizendium puts writers under strict constraints, and drafts must be approved before being published. Feel free to log in and help develop the article.

If you have any scientific knowledge about global warming which runs counter to the "natural cycles" theory, I'm sure Citizendium would welcome it. Their founder is the co-author (or primary author?) of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you support neutrality in encyclopedia writing, you'll really enjoy working at Citizendium.

Biased drafts (such as mine) are stopped in their tracks! --Uncle Ed 12:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I found this much more face-meltingly awesome. It's like one of the sadder and more neglected Wikipedia talk pages, only now in article space. :) --Ashenai 11:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have any evidence that the UN's assessment group is objective, please give it. Or are there reasons other than objectivity that you'd like to give it "authority"?

My only concern is how theories match up with facts. If a theory implies a hypothesis which can be tested, and that hypothesis is contradicted by measurements of real-world phenomena, then IMHO that theory has been falsified. Of course, a strictly neutral encyclopedia would have to say that in some specific scientist's opinion the theory had been falsified, because neutrality means not taking a position. --Uncle Ed 12:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, but I feel obliged to tease you... when even Conservatopedia reverts you with rm silly anti-IPCC diatribe you really *must* be in trouble :-) William M. Connolley 08:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You have carte blanche to tease me any time you want, doc! ;-) --Uncle Ed 20:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your IPCC article was unfortunately stubbed, but we still have this to cherish... Raymond Arritt 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you guys sign up and make some improvements? --Uncle Ed 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We already have a reasonably good online encyclopedia. Why waste time on a third-rate project that does not even try to be unbiased? Is there any article on Conservapedia better than the corresponding Wikipedia entry?--Stephan Schulz 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I regard your refusal as a tacit admission that the anthropogenic global warming theory is pseudoscience. There's not even an article explaining what the theory *IS*, let alone showing evidence for it or explaining how it could be falsified.

If your argument in favor of AGW had any credibility, you wouldn't be changing the subject. True science works not be distracting people when they mount challenges, but by sharing evidence and inviting other scientists to replicate your work. --Uncle Ed 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fork?

Hello Ed Poor! I saw somewhere saying you work for the New World Encyclopedia. That one looks pretty decent. Just a question, when it's launched, who can edit there? Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been a year since I've done any work for them, but last I heard the plans were to allow schoolteachers and other qualified people to make volunteer contributions.

The project will be released next year. For now, there are only a few sample articles available. In my opinion, every one of them is better than its corresponding Wikipedia article; in some cases, substantially better. (I've copied some passages back, so this may reduce the difference in quality.) --Uncle Ed 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So, when it finally comes out, it will be another great competitor to Wikipedia after Citizendium's inception? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It won't compete in size, but in articles which are of "featured" quality. --Uncle Ed 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Eliot Spitzer

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Requests for comment/Eliot Spitzer, by Black Falcon, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Requests for comment/Eliot Spitzer fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

G6 (housekeeping). A RfC page that was mistakenly created without the "Wikipedia:" prefix. It has no incoming links except from three pages of cross-namespace redirects.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Requests for comment/Eliot Spitzer, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Requests for comment/Eliot Spitzer itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Convervapedia

Do you still work in Conservapedia? They now have many articles and may siphon editors from Wikipedia. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I still work there? I'm the #2 contributor! --Uncle Ed 00:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed, but conservatives favor the rich, and you are "Poor", seems a little contradictory :-) Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi. Did you receive my e-mail of May 8th and are you in a position to move ahead with the planning? I'd be glad to help as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your email. I cannot actually organize a meeting because I'm planning to go overseas for a religious retreat. (The brainwashing's starting to wear off, so I need a refresher. ;-) But count me in for the autumn! --Uncle Ed 00:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Understanding warm bias in the temperature record

I know you have an interest in global warming. As you may know, there are serious problems with the temperature record being biased by UHI or similar warming biases related to land use changes, etc. ClimateAudit.org is organizing an effort to photograph sites. Understanding the issue will help you be a better editor and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on AGW. If you are interested, you could be a part of the effort. Please take a look here. [13] RonCram 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Meetup

Hello, Ed Poor

I would like to invite you to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Political status of Palestine

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Political status of Palestine, by Tewfik, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Political status of Palestine fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

2004 copy-paste of other entries and unencyclopaedic comments; in any event redundant to existing entries.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Political status of Palestine, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Political status of Palestine itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Big_Ed.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Big_Ed.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unification Church-related stubs

I think you should merge the Family Pledge and Ahn Shi II articles (and any similar ones you've created) to a single article, or the appropriate places in existing articles. It doesn't make sense to me for you to create these stubs and immediately propose merging them; why not put the content in an existing article, as appropriate, and then see if other people want to merge it out? Propaniac 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed

The article Sun Myung Moon tax case was recently renamed to Sun Myung Moon tax fraud and conspiracy. As I pointed out on the article's talk page the fact that many people do not feel he was guilty of these things is the whole point of the controversy that makes the case notable. Could you do something about getting the title changed back. Thanks. Steve Dufour 16:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A compromise has been worked out on this. The article could use some more information about people and groups that came to Rev. Moon's defense. We also need an article on Ambassadors for Peace. I wrote one before but it got deleted. See you around. Steve Dufour 16:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

D. A. Ratcliffe

I have submitted for proposed deletion. FYI. -- Y not? 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

James Haley

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article James Haley, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. KenWalker | Talk 04:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

List of bachelors

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of bachelors, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design FAR

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jews for Jesus, by Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jews for Jesus fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

attack

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jews for Jesus, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

MedCom

:). Glad to see you might be back around - your insight and ability will always be a benefit to the Committee, and it'll be much stronger if you decide you can take a case here and there :). Daniel 09:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hallucination

Sir, regarding your aticle, how do we know this here, the present, is not a hallucination? Observe the continuity or lack thereof, you say? I say this works in the long term but owing that one does not necessarily know at any given point in time that they are hallucinating there is no way to know whether the observation of continuity itself is not a (arguably boring) hallucination. I would also posit that it is impossible for an individual to prove via logic proof that they are not hallucinating at any given time, since at any point in the discourse, one could hallucinate that an assertion makes sense. ~ Infrangible 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If I could only be sure there was a person behind that remark, and that it wasn't simply me imagining it, I might feel more invested in trying to come up with a thoughtful reply. --Uncle Ed 23:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Barry Barnes

Really now Ed, the contextless quote you tacked in was from a source discussing consensus science not scientific consensus. Or don't you know the difference? Vsmith 00:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Old discussion (random Middle-earth articles)

In case it dropped off your watchlist, some discussion eventually took place at Portal talk:Middle-earth/Random-article in response to your question. Carcharoth 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you make the template for birthdates

I saw that you (I guess) made the template for Lindsay Lohan's age along with the birthdate. I was trying to do it for Padma Lakshmi's but I'm not sure of what data you input into the template itself. If I figure it out myself I'll let you know. Thanks. þ 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

- Never mind there must have been an error with the page, or perhaps something I was doing that was wrong. Thanks anyway. þ

Spam in Creation Science Association

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Creation Science Association, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Creation Science Association is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Creation Science Association, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Heya Ed

Hi there Ed, I was wondering if you could look at the way the article Potter's House Christian Fellowship is being edited. Darrenss is a disgrutled former member and shows obvious bias if you veiw his history. He also attacks any site associated with the group deleting key links and nominating pages for deletion. I was wondering if you could check it out to see if yhe can be blocked or the articles made to be more 'neutral' and not hate pages, if you have time of course. Thanks. 124.184.131.250 11:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto Treat

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Kyoto Treat, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. NeilN 03:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Born on

Template:Deprecation notice --MZMcBride 05:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Help requested for a title issue

Hi, I saw you contributed to British Mandate for Palestine. Could you give your mind for a title issue between Palestine and British Mandate for Palestine here.
Thank you in advance !
Regards, Alithien 18:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment...

Do I understand right that you think both are equivalent ? Alithien 06:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my Definition of Palestine and Palestinian? The terms are not equivalent at all. Palestine is a region, but it's also a "country" or "nation" in the making, intended to reduce or absorb Israel's territory.

Also, it's often unclear what "Palestinian" means. Is it a resident of Palestine (region), such as the pre-1967 Palestinian Jews? Is it a non-Jewish resident of Israel? Any resident of Gaza or West Bank, or just non-Jewish ones? Does it include Arabs in other lands (e.g., Jordan) who want to "return"?

It would be simpler if newspapers and other media would say "PA citizen" or "Arab" when speaking of political or ethnic identity. But the whole issue of who is a "Palestinian" and what this means is caught up in a tangle of ethnicity and nationalism.

Please don't ask me to make this any simpler. --Uncle Ed 18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Uncle Ed,

Yes I read and in fact I knew that.

I know it is very unclear what Palestinian means. And even more before may 1948 where jewish citizens were palestinians !

A sense that most (even scholars) forgot eg when they talk about Palestinian exodus...

Note here, it is more about Palestine than Palestinian.

We are before May 1948 so in the region called Palestine but also in a country named Palestine as can be seen on the flag of the British Mandate.

My problem is to find a compromise between two contributors :

One wants we write 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine

and the other wants we write 1948 Civil War in the British Mandate of Palestine

Alithien 08:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Actor birth date and Template:Child aqctor birth date

Template:Actor birth date and Template:Child actor birth date, which you created, have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the discussion located here. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Old, old unexplained flag

Back on 2 August 2006, you added {{POV-section}} to Operation Accountability#Outcome. You didn't drop a note on the talk page. Can you put one there to indicate what the concern is? GRBerry 21:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:History POV

Template:History POV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — PrimeHunter 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

About Horse Training project

Here's something interesting for you (I hope): AND wikipedia project

What do you think about? :-)

(PS: I picked you up just as the first one of the project members list!)

Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 09:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:WikiPicnic 2007 005.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WikiPicnic 2007 005.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template cleanup

It seems at some point you created a series of templates related to some sort of math. None of these templates are being used, so would you have any objection to me deleting these templates (listed below)? Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I had meant to clean those up long ago!

Of historical interest, it was the creation of these (and related) math templates that stimulated developer Tim Starling to greate the ParserFunctions, on which the ever-popular {{age}} template is based.

Archive or delete at your pleasure, comrade. :-) --Uncle Ed 10:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All done. Certainly interesting about the creation of ParserFunctions; God knows they're invaluable today. : - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll convey your appreciation to Him. ;-) --Uncle Ed 17:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:BlueIfToday

Template:Deprecation notice --MZMcBride 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

The Intelligent design article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words on my talk page. I am mulling over an example for scientific method which is not natural science-oriented to demonstrate that it is not restricted to the traditional topics in scientific method. One example which occurs to me is from economics. For example, the Chicago RTA is currently playing a game of 'chicken' with the state, to see who blinks first. I need to ask some urban planners their thoughts, but briefly my idea is to state the RTA mess right now, list some options for action based on the perceived policy for the City of Chicago, and come up with a prediction. It's not really original research because urban policy has to serve the inhabitants of the city. I do not think that would be disputed. Therefore the prediction ought to be that some state agency will provide a way to guarantee a bond which underwrites additional funds for transportation infrastructure in Chicago. The prediction does not have to answer when.

Sample:

• 1. Situation: RTA mess in Chicago. RTA to borrow 90 million from next years budget to keep services at current level.
• 2. Hypothesis: RTA funds infrastructure improvements aid productivity in Chicago (people on time for their jobs, etc.)
• 3. Prediction: If increase funding for RTA, then productivity increases in Chicago.
• 4. Test: Look for cut in funding, to stimulate political support for bond issue underwritten by Illinois.

Step 4 (at least the first part) was in yesterday's Chicago Tribune headline which I picked up today at the Tollway Oasis after visiting my daughters: "RTA digs itself into deeper hole". So all that is needed is the demonstration of political support, and I can add this to the article as a concrete example. The essential point is that no one knows the answer right now; it's a conundrum, hence suitable for scientific method. --Ancheta Wis 02:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the burning question which concerns materialists and their philosophical opponents is whether the scientific method (or indeed any aspect of science) can be applied to anything which is not strictly physical and/or deterministic. Economics involves decisions and choices by human beings. Are human beings completely determined by natural laws and physical forces? Is this a premise of science (or of physical science?)

Believers in God and the supernatural do, in some cases, value science. So how do science and religious "faith" relate? Must one bow to the other or be forced to take a back seat? How can they work together? --Uncle Ed 03:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Politics of Eritrea

I don't understand why you reverted my change here. Your comment of rvv is puzzling. Did you mean "revert vandalism"? I thought it was against the customs here to label a change which you disagree with editorially as "vandalism". --Uncle Ed 03:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I apologize, I had meant to put "rv" with an explanation but I may have gotten "trigger" happy. As for the edit however, Eritrea is not a single party state as the PFDJ is not a political party (in its charter it specifically states that it is not). --Merhawie 12:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a phrase like "Although its charter specifically says that it is not a one party state, no other political parties are currently in existence." This would go along with, "All newspapers are controlled by the government, and there are no privately owned radio or TV stations."

I guess this is a difference between whether it's a dictatorship "in actuality" vs. "on paper".

Is this something we as writers can evaluate, or do we need to quote a source who says something like, "Eritrea's concept of itself is contradicted by the reality"? --Uncle Ed 13:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the phrase that you suggest is that it is not that there are no other political parties, it is that there are no' political parties. As for references...I am always for more references from a variety of sources. --Merhawie 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of conductors

List of conductors, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of conductors satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conductors and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of conductors during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 15:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

Was I blocked? I wonder what it was for ... --Uncle Ed 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Let me see what I can find out. There doesn't seem to be any reason in the block summary... WjBscribe 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you because the blocking admin did not give a reason for your block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found two autoblocks and lifted them so you should now be able to edit. Any idea what that was about? WjBscribe 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If I were a suspicious man, I would think it was retribution for blocking someone on another wiki. But since I'm not suspicious I assume it was a glitch caused by my IP skipping around on wi-fi.

Hey, how come wi-fi doesn't rhyme with wiki? :-) --Uncle Ed 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Probation

I just read your user page and saw you were on probation. Why don't you just create a new identity so you don't have this hanging around your neck? Traicao 05:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I should change. I did nothing wrong. Wikipedia must change, or decline. --Uncle Ed 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

True that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area Last: 8/12/2007

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Old Edit to Asbestos

I am sorry that I did not see your reversion of an addition I had made to the asbestos article, to wit

Both counts have increased since then, with RAND putting the number of defendants at 8,400 in 2002, and some defendants reporting claim counts in excess of 800,000 in 2006.

I can move the first of the two references to just behind the word RAND if that would make the reference clearer, however the source is RAND directly. The link for the sample 10-Q should lead to a public filings by Enpro, so I changed the FN reference slightly and changed 'some' to 'at least one'

That would produce:

Both counts have increased since then, with RAND putting the number of defendants at 8,400 in 2002, and at least one defendant reporting claim counts in excess of 800,000 in 2006

This look ok to you? Bob Herrick 22:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't even remember making that edit. Whatever you think is good, will be okay I'm sure. Thanks for thinking of me. :-) --Uncle Ed 00:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Investigation

I would appreciate your input. There seems to be an editor who feels it is his/her perogative to completely control the WSI article. He is even edit warring on the talk page.--JobsElihu 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My word no longer carries any particular weight at Wikipedia: I am a former admin. But I'll take a look all the same, since you ask. --Uncle Ed 00:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Prod

Purpose of Creation

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Purpose of Creation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Class interests

I've started a stub on the above today. I was rather surprised that there was no article on it until today.

• I found you by looking up the earliest Marxism editor I could find. So - will you kindly add some meat to that stub above? Remember that the worker too have got to eat.

Cheers, Comrade (or whatever), --Ludvikus 04:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of class interests. I've been in all three classes. --Uncle Ed 22:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Politics of Genetics and Inheritance

Dear Ed Poor,

I am trying to recruit participants to my PhD research project, tackling 'The Politics of Genetics and Reproductive Technology'. I noticed your contributions towards the article on Biology and sexual orientation and I wondered if you'd like to participate? I believe you will be able to make a valuable contribution. Before you decide, you should be aware of what this involves. I am inviting you to contribute towards a (password protected) "research wiki". This will be used because I'm interested to see how differing attitudes to the subject interact with each other, and I want to evaluate the potential for consensus in this area. I think the wiki is extremely useful in this context. It involves collaboration and sharing ideas amongst a group, and therefore it could help shed a light on especially contentious issues or areas of potential agreement. The wiki will be in operation for a number of months and I am interested in all sorts of contributions. For further information please see this link.

If you are interested, you will find my contact details on my userpage. Feel free to get in touch should you have any questions. Your valuable contribution would be much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas 19:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. I notice the external link I gave you directs you to the wrong page. Sorry. Please try this instead. --Nicholas 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation of wikiproject

Just thought you would want to know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and Controversies has been created. It will take it awhile to get it running. Feel free to jump in and help out. Remember 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Birth date and age

Template:Birth date and age has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. _→AzaToth 22:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mendel

Hi Ed, I liked the additions you made to Mendel re the alleged faking of his data. What was FM's objection to this addtion other than it was you that added it? Do you think he actually read the content before reverting? I'd be game for adding it back but we need to reference it better. For example do you have the full citation for Box 1978? David D. (Talk) 15:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I thought the edits were good also. Massachew 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. I think "OR" is short for Wikipedia:Original research, i.e., "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". Maybe he thought I was advancing the position that Christianity is good because it motivated Mendel to find order in God's creation, although that was not my intent.

In any case, we'll need to find references for the deleted material - otherwise putting it back would be pointless. Once a challenge has been made, it must be answered I guess. --Uncle Ed 12:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That Mendal did not see linkage and the circumstances that surround that observation is standard text book stuff. For example, Klug et al. Essentials in Genetics sixth edition have it. Their primary source is Stig Blixt (1975) Nature 256: p206. It looks like a letter to the editor. He points out that Mendals genes were in fact not on different chromosome arms, three were on chromosome 4. So why no linkage? Apparently the pair that would have shown linkage are the pair Mendel did not publish. David D. (Talk) 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dental amalgam controversy

Hello Ed - Earlier in the year you assisted with the Dental Amalgam Controversy page, and I just recently noticed (discoverd!) my User Talk page, and the message you'd posted there (thank you) - so I've at last got round to replying! Wanted to check you knew I'd replied. Anyway, regarding the above-mentioned article, it's now November, and I made a suggestion for the article back in February which still no one has either accepted or rejected. Incredible! Although I'm a Wiki neophyte, still that seems a mighty long time to wait for a consensus from other Wiki editors on my suggested addition!

Do you think this is exceptional, or does it happen often in Wikipedia that a proposed addition to a controversial article ends up waiting in limbo for 10 months while the article was frozen during most of that time... and still no response from anyone about my suggestion? And it's not even that my suggested addition is controversial, because I don't think it is. In fact, it's a rather conservative statement (and well-referenced), and no one in these ten months has expressed any criticism of it. So I'm thinking of just posting it in the article itself. However, the last time I tried to post small additions like this, they were reverted 4 or 5 times in a row, and without any explanation or discussion from the editors that were doing the reversions. So I have a suspicion that despite this ten-month silence, nonetheless my addition could well be simply reverted - in silence! - as last time!

Perhaps my fears are unjustified. But based on my past experience from last time, this almost seems like an abuse of the Wikipedia system when that kind of thing happens - as you can see: this is the result - a well-meaning contributor like me, who is trying as best as he can to write balanced and well-referenced statements to contribute to the community encyclopedia effort - and due to the apparently abusive behaviour of certain others, his contributions are either reverted or ignored for ten months, without even any discussion (note: I'm not saying that the neglect is abusive in itself, it was the repetitive reversions with no discussion that were abusive at the time, then followed by ten months of silence). I don't even know who, if anyone, I should complain to on Wikipedia about this situation/behaviour. But at the very least, I don't think this is true to the friendly Wiki community spirit, and certainly this type of behaviour would serve to discourage contibutions from writers. Most people in my shoes would simply have given up a long time ago, and that's a loss to Wikipedia if certain users are abusing the system so as others are ostracised.

Well, I'm sorry to come out with all this complaining here! It's because I get the impression you're a very experienced Wiki writer - so I thought I'd ask you what you'd suggest - as you might have good suggestions regarding the situation! I also noticed that you, like me, were aiming at taking a balanced view of the subject (the Wiki ideal), which I liked. And so I also wondered if I could take you up on your original offer to lend a hand - and I was wondering what you would suggest I do next? With many thanks in advance for any tips or input you might have. . . Simon K (Talk) 21:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon, the stability of any public wiki collaboration is based on consensus. Enough people have to agree that an article is good the way it is; otherwise, someone will keep reverting it.

It's not enough to make a a change that seems valuable to you - others must also appreciate its value. --Uncle Ed 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Uncle Ed! That makes sense. So how is consensus reached on a change? How do people express support? Is there a place on Wikipedia, for example, that I could contact a bunch of editors to review the matter and establish the kind of group consensus you're describing? I'd be very happy if there were a group consensus, rather than only one other person imposing on another.

If this isn't done, the article creator is liable to continue simply repeated reversions without any dialogue about it. Incidentally, it's of interest that this member didn't write the article, but moved it from another article to create a new one - whereas I was the one who actually wrote this article in the first place, back in 2004! As he was the one who thought of moving it to a new page before I thought of it, this has since given him the power to revert any further changes I make to my original article! Ironic, but frustrating.

Another reason it might be worth calling in a group of other editors is that this past behaviour on the part of the other party seems to me to go against Wiki advice/policy in all of the following areas: "First step: Talk to the other parties involved". Tried to, but no response! "Second step: Disengage for a while". Tried that, for ten months! "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute". He/she did so continually! "Repeated reverting is forbidden". Ditto! Thanks again for any advice or assistance you may be able to offer. Simon K 15:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Project

Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Projecthas not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. _Jame§^ugrono 07:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Use

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Use, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ruby slippers

Ruby slippers, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Ruby slippers satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby slippers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Ruby slippers during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Smalldelete

Template:Deprecation notice Bryan Derksen (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Prod

Buck Brannaman

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Buck Brannaman, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Narson (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Objects of the Solar System

Template:Deprecation notice Bryan Derksen (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on FGC

Hi. I am having a dispute with a user on FGC. I noticed your previous contribution and hoped you might provide some third-party commentary on a dispute at Blackworm’s objections. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Phyesalis (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent plea to the Neutrality Project

Thanks for your considerable comments left on our talk page. However, though your intentions seem noble, there are some issues, most of which are not entirely your fault.

1. Some of these articles are out of my depth &mash; I simply do not have the knowledge on them, or perhaps the patience to sift through hundreds of citations, in order to re-write them.
2. Some of these articles have been or currently are the subject of dispute resolution. The ones that have been usually remain unstable. We try to avoid these kinds of articles; we don't want to start or elevate anything! There are some cases where we will make changes, and these times come along when something is outrageously POV.
3. Our review team at the moment, is too small. I'm glad you've joined, as you could help to take some of the strain off of our resources. However, in order to deal with the issues, most of our member would need to be active, an unfortunately, not all of them are.

Again, sorry that we aren't able to deal with it immediately. However, since it's on the talk page, it would certainly be a long term goal of the project._Jame§^ugrono 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Age in Years, months, days

I see you've spearheaded some work on date/time templates. Is there a template which returns age in years, months AND days?
For example, if I entered {{ template | 2005 | 8 | 1 }} today, it would return "2 years, 4 months, 1 day."
Thanks. (Answer here, and I'll check back.)—Markles 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Politicization of science

(Moved from your user page) I did what I could. The article still needs a lot of work, in order to comply with WP:NPOV.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

Hi Ed. I just made a suggestion on Talk:United States Congressional investigation of the Unification Church that the article be renamed. Please post a comment with your opinion. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and followed your suggestion about the new title. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Props & ganders

Hey Ed! Hope you're well. I still have that page on my watchlist and that just popped out as obviously inappropriate. I probably should have looked more closely at the rest of the edits too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ever since I got access to the ProQuest newspaper archive through my local library I've felt omniscient! (Well, at least when it comes to stuff printed in newspapers since 1980). It's so much better than Google for finding things like this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WP admin history

I saw your comment on the NYC meetup page. If you are interested in expounding on early admin history (which you were quite involved with) please consider adding whatever you may remember to User talk:NoSeptember/Early admins. Cheers, NoSeptember 19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pejoratives and POV wrt critics of Rev. Moon

Hi Ed,

I'm pretty new here and I appreciate your helping with my work on the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, and thanks for pointing out that the Rev. Moon (as 'True Parent' of the Unification Church and it's members) does not personally own the the Washington Times, United Press International, Insight Magazine and the others, but I think your editorials appear to be attempts to 'distance' Rev. Moon from Unification Church owned/controlled/subsidized media, and maybe a bit disingenuous -- especially coming from a Unification Church member. These efforts appear to clearly represent a POV in favor of masking the extent of Rev. Moon's use of Church-controlled media in the political sphere, such as is confirmed by Rev. Moon's own words ("I used the Washington Times to stop that evil attempt..."). which is properly cited in the article and referenced back to Unification Church websites.

• I agree that there should be no "distancing" between Rev. Moon and the media outlets he founded/inspired/controls. The Washington Times is "his" newspaper even if he himself does not personally own it. It is my personal opinion that, if he asked, he could have the editor in chief replaced; that makes it "his" as far as I am concerned; but I am a mere follower; I do not speak for the church.

• Whether (and how much) Rev. Moon has used Church-controlled media in the political sphere is an important topic. It should be written about in detail. Can we work together on describing the political effect or influence church-owned media have had? For example, if Rev. Moon said that the coverage (or editorials) of the Times led to (or accelerated) the downfall of European or Soviet communism, then this claim should be highlighted. We might even describe any notable person who agrees or disagrees with this viewpoint.

Specifically, you seem overly-sensitive to any criticizm of Unification Church-controlled media as "propaganda", no matter how well-founded. In one instance related to the assertion that Unification Church subsidized media are propaganda outlets, you recently changed "Critics charge that...", to "Critics complain...".

• Yes, I am overly sensitive. I've put in an order for alligator skin, but it hasn't been delivered yet. ;-) It is incorrect for me to equate criticism with propaganda. Sometimes, criticism can be constructive. (I recall beginning to incorporate criticism of church fundraising tactics in church-related articles a few years ago; perhaps I should return to that theme now.) In any case, no critical view should be censored; that would violate the neutrality policy of Wikipedia:NPOV.

• I was wrong to say "critics complain"; thank you for changing that back! :-)

Your substitution of the word 'complain' is pejorative in the way it re-characterizes some important and well-founded criticism as "complaining". If it's true that the Unification Church has subsidized billions of dollars of operating losses at the Washington Times and other neoconservative media outlets, the "charge" that these billions of dollars of subsidies represent propaganda tactics seems well founded, especially in light of Rev. Moon's public comments about "using" the Washington Times in political context.

• Whether the fact of subsidies proves the POV of propaganda is anyone's guess. Let's simply quote a notable source who says so, and leave it at that. Fair enough?

So, acknowledging that the original word "charge" could also be pejorative, I'm changing the line to "Critics assert..." and hope we can agree on this.

• I think I saw you change "assert" back to "charge" here. That's fine. I think "charge" is a better word, as it implies that the critics believe wrongdoing has occurred. That is their belief, isn't it?

I understand the reaction to the word "propaganda". Carelessly used, it's a pejorative, and ANY use of the word should be checked for POV, but IF it's supported by facts, THEN it's a quite acceptable and even necessary to use the word. I think there is a very good case, given the billions of dollars of Unification Church subsidies used to sustain these money-losing media holdings since 1983, and the generally universal recognition of these Media holdings as "agenda oriented", that the assertion that these holdings represent propaganda outlets is well founded in the definition of the word. I understand that it's not "politically correct" among neo-conservatives to permit the use the word propaganda in reference to Unification Church-controlled media. I also understand that characterizations of popular media (whether Unification Church-controlled or not) as "propaganda" tend to be incendiary and provoke heated defense from adherents.

• I have no particular problem with the word "propaganda", as long as it is not used by a Wikipedia writer in violation of the "no original research" guidelines. Quote as many sources as you like who make that charge. I like hearing both sides of every question.

If you can suggest a different word that nonetheless accurately characterizes the criticizm, I would welcome it, but there does not appear to be one in the English language.

Lastly, as a Unification Church member who has written quite a bit of pro-Unification Church material (i.e. Ed Poor claims Moon critics ignore Moon's actual statements...., I think your POV calls into question your ability to "criticize the critics" in an NPOV manner, especially when those critics are pointing out "Moon's actual statements".

• I don't think it's my place as a Wikipedian to criticize anyone within the text of a Wikipedia article. Anytime you catch me doing so, please stop me. Keep it up, you are making me a better writer. (smile)

I am respectfully suggesting that you:

a) Please respond on my talk page if you want to discuss further, and

b) In the context of your apparently unresolvable POV problem, I'd suggest you recuse yourself from the topic, and abstain from further undiscussed deletion or rewording of other editors work involving Rev. Moon's critics. Certainly your voice and POV with respect to critics is welcome on the talk pages, and I look forward to you proposing your changes there. For example, a suggestion to change "Critics charge...propaganda" to something less pejorative might easily have been welcomed.

• I can see that my recent round of changes was too hasty (at best) in several respects, and I appreciate your opening of this dialog.

I for one am looking forward to learning more about Rev. Moon's teachings. There is no doubt that you are knowledgable about Rev. Moon and the Unification Church. I hope you will add more on Unification Church views (for example, I want to understand why Rev. Moon claims to have "used the Washington Times" to squelch a GOP concerns regarding the United Nations) and less time subtracting from what seems to be honest, substantive and well-founded criticisms.

Thanks,

riverguy42 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a refreshing and invigorating bit of feedback you gave me.

I will focus more on church teachings, now that you mention it. Perhaps you'd also like to hear more about groups/organizations he founded or inspired, such as the Ambassadors for Peace or his Middle East Peace Initiative.

Rev. Moon's views on the United Nations is something I will have to go and research.

I certainly do not want to subtract anything honest or well-founded. It is a core teaching of the Unification Church that "honesty comes first". It would be a sin for me to violate this teaching. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (again) Ed, I really appreciate your civility in response to my (perhaps a bit heavy-handed) reaction.

I think it's very difficult for ANYONE to write from a purely NPOV perspective on Rev. Moon or his teachings. The fact is (at least as I see it), the majority of what Rev. Moon envisions is quite in-line with other "beacons of light" in peace movements world-wide. I think that many of Rev. Moon's opponents disagree with what they see as the means that the Unification Church uses before understanding the ENDS in 'big picture' terms. That being said...it is the controversies themselves that provide incentive for many to look deeper into the Unification Church and it's teachings. I'm not sure I agree with all of the UC means, and I don't personally believe in the "Leo Strauss" school of public media discourse that seems embedded deeply into the Washington Times, but I do think it's important for Rev. Moon's critics to at least understand the ends that Rev. Moon envisions, and you clearly are doing your part in this regard...thanks (again) for contributing -- especially to my own edification.

Recently I read (from a George Archibald blog entry) that there is an "in-civil" war within the Washington Times for ideological control of the paper. I find Archibald's "expose" both facinating and questionable (whenever "racist" charges fly, I become suspect - so I take it all with a HUGE grain of salt). Bottom line is that Unification Church media have been powerful and pervasive among the extreme right in American politics, let's pray that the good guys (whomever they are) prevail in that battle. riverguy42 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Politicization of science

Okay, that makes more sense. I do feel caught up in something other than the basic editing of an article, which isn't fun. I also think that the IP is trying to push his POV, which may have contributed to my assumption that he was wrong. It sounds like the biases are as ambiguous as any revert war, but I do feel like I wasted my time editing something that I didn't know wouldn't stand.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I led you to waste your time. I hate wasting my own time, too. I had high hopes that the article could be restructured so that historical examples (which both liberals and conservatives could agree on) would come first. Then we might wade slowly into modern examples, which might require showing two sides.

Everyone agrees on Galileo and Lysenko, I think. But other 20th examples are harder to characterize, because the disputes are still going on. What some people think are clear-cut "examples of politicization" by one side, seem to me to be examples of scientific controversy. Or maybe both sides are politicizing the issue.

Anyway, it's too deep for me. All I plan to do in the near future is suggest reviving Galileo and Lysenko - and push to have them be the first examples on account of their clarity and utter non-controversiality.

Or if you want me to butt out, maybe I should just stay away from the topic completely? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about it. Part of it was my mistake too. I'm just going to wait until after the article is unlocked and go from there, and incorporate my original revisions into a version that is more widely accepted.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But I am worried about it. It would be better for Ed to contribute to a less controversial article; his actions there over the last week or two was exactly the sort of behavior that prompted the probation he's apparently forgotten about. I'm getting a number of complaints about his editing and reversions there and tempers are running high because of it. Ed would be wise to disengage and not run the risk of making things worse by pressing his case. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Courtney (climate)

Hi Ed, I've not been able to find much information on Richard Courtney, not even such basic info as what degrees he holds or what his academic training was in. Given the requirements for reliable information per WP:BLP, might it be better not to have an article? I've long expressed concern that Wikipedia's many articles on marginally-notable individuals are disasters waiting to happen, as there are few people watching them to keep bad stuff from creeping in. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with avoiding disaster, and have userfied this unreliable information here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Raw paste"

Please add a link to the insightmag page quoted in this edit: [14]. Thanks. Andyvphil (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lee Myung Bak

I have readded the controversy section to this that you removed and put a note on the talk page. I'm offended because I worked hard on the last paragraph, which is relevent to the article especially given the number of news stories out there about the allegations against him. I welcome you to work on it if you feel it lacks something, but blatently removing the whole thing is just plain wrong.

Take a look at my edit history and guess why I don't edit on Wikipedia anymore. It is exactly situations like this. Davidpdx (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too severe. I will be more patient. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ed!

Hi Ed, glad to see you're back on Wikipedia. Take a look, on my talk page, at my brief analysis of the current state of the anthropogenic global warming hysteria ... it's slowly (or perhaps rapidly) falling apart in the scientific world, even as it gains momentum in the political world. Once it collapses, it won't be much of a problem on Wikipedia any more. Courage. Vegasprof (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eco-coverbig02.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Eco-coverbig02.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Need your input (help?)

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the nice words at my talk page, and I hope you also liked my treatment of "Basic Beliefs", which I almost can't believe was missing from the BLP of a spiritual leader.

I hope you will add something to the "subject-object" issue that takes some reinforcement from there.

Meanwhile, there is a growing problem with tendentious editing among some UC member-editors, and I think you are probably the best guy here to provide them (and perhaps me) some moderating influence and guidance. Can you please take a look at Steve Dufour's recent section blanking, my response, and chime in?

Thanks,

riverguy42 (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've chimed. But really the best thing to do is to identify the two sides in the controversy. Also, have you read Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy?

You mean like this? riverguy42 (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I couldn't have done better myself!! :-)

Sometimes the best way to defuse a quarrel is to let the other side know that you understand their point of view, before spending too much time explaining your own. Every time I fail to do that, I just get in more trouble. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've tried...several comments to Steve...just losing patience. Thanks for chiming in... riverguy42 (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AMNH tour

We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#AMHN tour sign-up. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Subject-Object metaphor and difficulties expressing Korean thought in the English language...

Hi again Ed,

I sympathize with the (apparent) difficulties that Rev. Moon and the Unification Church have had in expressing deeply spiritual metaphors of Korean linguistic construction in the (relatively impoverished) English language. I made reference to one such instance in my comment to you regarding Rev. Moon's incendiary description of women as "receptacles" for male "seed", (which fails in it's comparison of human biology to plant biology) at the talk page for Sun Myung Moon.

It just occurred to me that what Rev. Moon might have been trying to convey is the idea of woman as "Holy Grail", the ancient representation that is used by (for example) the Freemasons as popularized in "The DaVinci Code". This is extraordinarily difficult going from Hebrew to English and I can imagine this might also be the case going from Korean to English.

It seems to me that this "chalice" idea may be more representative of what Moon was trying to convey in the controversial "receptacle" comments, and that you might be able to draw out and cite some references to this somewhat more sophisticated metaphor from the Divine Principle (if any indeed exist).

However, I think that Unification Church theology will have a big challenge if the Freemasons and other proto-Christians are right, and the bloodline of Jesus was indeed preserved (in secrecy) as they say was foretold in Isiah 53:10... Jesus offspring ;->

Anyway, thanks again for your efforts and help...I'm still pretty new at this.

riverguy42 (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to help:

1. Based on my reading of hundreds of similar metaphors, I think Rev. Moon was emphasizing the active role of men, as providers of the sperm cell and the passive role of women as receivers. This is in accord with one of the main contrasts between subject and object, where the subject initiates and the objects "goes along".
2. Note that there can be subject-object relationships other than in marriage. Susan says to Janet, "Shall we go to the mall?" And Janet might say, "Okay!" In this example, Susan was the initiating subject and Janet was the supportive object.
3. There are critics who object to all instances of "telling" and "obeying" as exploitative, condescending, or chauvinistic. Unification Thought agrees with one aspect of this criticism while disagreeing with another.
   • The part we agree with, of course, is that exploitation is evil. Many, if not most "subject-object" relationships in the political world are exploitative: rich vs. poor, dictator vs. citizens.
   • Where we disagree, though, is on the notion that it is always exploitative to initiate an activity or tell someone to do something. You, for example, have initiated a process with me to edit Sun Myung Moon, and I am mostly going along with you. Neither of us feels that this makes you an exploiter. Another example is a musician who seeks out a teacher so he can learn how to play better. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold fusion research

Ed,

I've redirected Cold fusion research back to cold fusion. I'm afraid that the most probable result of your making such an article would be to either create a POV fork between the two pages or simply spread the edit warring. If you want to work on the article while it is locked, could you please copy the source to a user-subpage sandbox and link it on Talk:Cold fusion if you want comments? That will at least keep any warring out of article space. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what you mean by a "POV fork". Was there an NPOV violation in what I wrote? If so, please point it out to me so that I can rewrite it neutrally.

Until then, I'm happy to userfy what I wrote. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What you wrote was fine. The potential for a POV fork was two cold fusion articles with different, both non-neutral, points-of-view. Thanks for moving it to userspace. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice

"I didn't realize you had a family member in hospital. I'm happy to withdraw the ANI and tickle you with a large wet trout instead. Peace? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Peace is good, Ed. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC) " Good job, Ed. It's nice to see that we can disagree but not hate. Seriously. I like stuff like that. On the other hand, I really like trout cooked Provençal style.  :)

Yeah, should I go over to ANI and "officially drop it"? How do I do that? Just say that it's no big deal and let's move on? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you just withdraw the complaint and that closes the issue. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation

You are named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. Please either agree to mediation, or strike your name from the list of parties. MigFP (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

I have seen some of your work; and you seem like a respected level-headed editor of climate change related articles. I am a new editor, and have been subejct to lots of harassment and accusations of bad faith. This user in particular has been reverting my work with no care, and posting nasty threats on my user talk page. Any help or advice you can offer me will be quite appreciated. Regards, The Noosphere (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I'm respected in this climate ... perhaps you're thinking of when I was an admin and William C. was not? But nasty threats and careless reversions are no good. If I have time, I'll take a look. But as I am probation there's probably little I can do. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, he's since been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user (see here). So you needn't bother unless of course you're just interested in what's going on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I trust you. Our disagreements have not been about facts but about matters of interpretation and endorsement. I hate sock puppets even more than I hate biased writing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant

I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hostage crisis

An editor has nominated Hostage crisis, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hostage crisis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden

Hi Ed, as one of the editors of Bombing of Dresden in World War II, would you mind commenting here about a possible name change? There is a proposal to call the article simply Bombing of Dresden. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note regarding R. fiend's block of you

Please note, I have acted on the consensus I have seen on the main RfC page, and opened a Request for Arbitration. You may add (brief, 500 words or less) statements Here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments and edits to Intelligent Design

Ed, it's pretty clear the editors there have reached the end of their rope with you. [15] Pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2, I'm banning you from that article and that talk page. Raul654 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Age Template

I notice that, as of today, the "Age Template" is one years old... I don't know what language Wikipedia is written in, but there must be an easy way to fix that!--81.62.98.254 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)