User talk:Ed Poor

Revert on Jack Sarfatti article

When Calton reverted your edits to Jack Sarfatti, you reverted back without explaining why. Calton expressed genuine concerns with your edits, and I think that some explanation is needed to sort this out. --Apyule 05:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I explained on the talk page. Please don't try to "build a case" against me, on this one, when I am enforcing Wikipedia policy. If I err slightly, please (1) help me to correct my tiny error and (2) do not thwart my intent, which is to get the article to conform to Wikipedia LEGAL and NPOV policy. Note that I am working closely with Jimbo, Anthere, and Fred Bauder on this.

The others have ganged up on a newbie who is also a notable person. There is an article about him entitled Jack Sarfatti. His username is User:JackSarfatti. He was blocked indefinitely for "making legal threats", but as I said on the talk page (either article, user, or both) I unblocked him in consultation with the blocking admin, after speaking with Jack on the phone.

He doesn't know our rules. We should explain them to him gently, instead of just blocking him permanently.

There is a legitimate policy question about how to characterize his "critics". Are they anonymous bloggers or newsgroup posters? Are any of these critics also Wikipedians? What have notable people said about him, like Martin Gardner or any Nobel-prize winning physicists?

Note that I am not taking sides on this. I have not even examined his theories! I only want the article about him to conform to our NPOV policy, which I believe requires us to give proper sources for those who support or oppose his views. Uncle Ed 13:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you haven't been editing neutrally. You've removed substantiated and relevant material, and abused both rollback and page protection. I respectfully suggest you might want to ask a different mediator to take over this one. --fvw * 16:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to build a case against anyone here. While enforcing wikipedia policy is needed and I thank you for it, I don't think that your actions have been totally transparent. That is why I asked for an explanation for the specific revert, which I still don't think has been given. --Apyule 01:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're building a case. I just asked you not to (see above). I the thing you say I "removed" was placed on the talk page for repairs. It might be relevant, but it is not substantiated, unless you think Wikipedia should accept anonymous criticisms as a source.

After checking with fellow admins on IRC, I rapidly unprotected the page (as a glance at the page protect log will show. Did you look, or are you "trying to bulid a case"?)

It's not an abuse of rollback to undo an erroneous revert - not if you explain the rollback on the talk page, which I have.

You're beginning to remind me of the "tenants from hell" described in this week's episode of my favorite comic strip: [1].

Please help me to craft a fair and neutral article. Please do not abuse the system to destroy or subvert the system. Uncle Ed 16:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quit

I'm not going to sit around while other Admins try to build a case against me, to get me de-sysopped. Not when Jimbo and Anthere asked us to fix the page mentioned above.

I'm supposed to be on vacation.

I dived in and tried to straighten this out, and this is the thanks I get?

Forget you! I'm out of here. - Ed

Don't go

Don't go, Ed. Please. You're held in high regard by many Wikipedians. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, have your vacation, but make sure you come back. You're liked and respected; well, more than liked. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you are one of the most respected editors here, and all your contributions and efforts are highly appreciated. You would be a great loss to the project. Now, take your well-deserved break, and come back when you feel refreshed. Don't worry about us while you're on vacation - we won't break anything! Seriously, though, please do rejoin us. Your efforts are valued. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of the kind of thing I have to put up with here. Well, I've had it. We need a new system. A wiki of unlimited openness is simply not up to the task of organizing the world's knowledge.

Consider me on break if you want, but I'm really upset. And I'm not coming back for a long time. Uncle Ed 19:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutly right, it's amazing what you have to put up with here--Armen Schrikken 19:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All that links to is his removal of your insult, a violation of WP:NPA that he removed and then you come back and do another.--MONGO 02:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the day when I went out to play and a bird flew down to my hand, didn't want to leave. When I asked to keep it, I remember my dad said, "Yeah son, let it go away. Hope that it comes back here to you some day. Just let it go away and if it comes back, you know it's here to stay."

Since then I've gone through changes. Since then I've gone through life. Since then I found me a beautiful woman I thought could be my wife. She said she really loves me but she said she couldn't stay. She said I've got to go my love to find things my own way. So I let her go away, hope that she comes back here to me some day. I let her go away and if she comes back, I know she's here to stay.

There's not always reasons for the things in life, but it's comforting to know within your mind, if you love something enough and you've done all that you can, if there's one thing I have known and learned first hand, sometimes you have to just let it go away. Hope that it comes back here to you some day. Just let it go away, and if it comes back, you know it's here to stay. --Depswa 19:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Please help

Hello, Uncle Ed. You might remember me from the Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs naming dispute, about three months ago. As you might know, the naming dispute is still not resolved, and I desperately need your advice. It's better to give a short overview of the dispute and the latest developments

Namely, as you might know, or as it can be seen here, the common name for this ethnic group is Macedonians, and all of the international organisations, all of the goverments (except Greece, Cyprus, and maybe Romania) refer to this ethnic group as Macedonians. In addition, all of the encyclopedias (except MSN Encarta) refer to this ethnic group as Macedonians. It is also the most common name for this ethnic group in major media outlets, and the remaining use of the Macedonian Slavs name is in decline. (The BBC officially apologized for using this label - [2]. I believe that, according to the NPOV policy: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views?

Perhaps, most importantly, according to the new Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline, or more precisely the section concerning specifically this type of problems, which has become an official naming convention in the meantime - there is no reason for the Macedonian Slavs label. Macedonians is the self-identifying term of this ethnic group, an Wikipedia shouldn't decide whether the have the right to identify as such. Moreover, most ethnic Macedonians vigorously protest against the use of the Macedonian Slavs label - [3], which they find offensive.

The Macedonian Slavs term is also ambigious - there are other Slavic speaking ethnic group in the region, most notably the Bulgarians.

Several attempts have being made to put an end to this dispute, according to the dispute resolution procedure but unfortunately they ended as a failure. The poll was an evident disaster, and involved cheap ethnic voting and sock puppetry on both sides. The RfC, which I posted here a month ago, and took place here, obviously didn't attract the necesarry number of neutral users. Except those already involved in the dispute, only REX and Nat Krause commented. They both agreed that we should use Macedonians (ethnicity) name.

I've invited the representatives of the Greek POV to go the Mediation several times, starting up here [4]. The efforts to end this dispute was supported by all participants in the discussion which are of different nationalities (Albanian, Bulgarian, Irish, American, Slovenian, and of course Macedonian), including a neutral admin (Zocky who has elaborated the Mediation issue in greater detail here [5].

As you can see in the talk page, this request for Mediation was rejected by the all the representatives of the Greek POV. After a brief period, Bomac moved the article to Macedonians (ethnic group), which was redirected back to Macedonian Slavs by Chronographos, and then redirected again to Macedonians (nation) by REX. As this is likely to become an another edit war, I would find your advice helpful:

What should be done in order to put this dispute to rest? The situation is rather specific, as Greeks actually refused to go to Mediation, and don't provide evidence to support the "Macedonian Slavs" label. Should we take this dispute to Arbitration? Should I request it to be protected as it is (Macedonians (nation))? Or something else? Please could you answer me these questions? --FlavrSavr 22:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence was produced by myself, User:Theathenae, User:Matia.gr, User:Miskin and most importantly User:Dbachmann, who pointed out that Macedonia is a historical and geographical entity of longstanding existence, and a minority of its inhabitants cannot monopolize the designation "Macedonian" for themselves, especially given their very recent (20th century) emergence as a separate ethnicity. User:Dbachmann astutely pointed out that you are attempting to "impose common usage" of the term Macedonian so as to make it refer to your people by default. The matter was voted on last June and the majority voted to keep the title. You not being satisfied with the vote, have continued to pursue the issue. You asked for mediation, and stated that I refused. This is not true. I said that "I cannot meet your schedule" and that I would not be available to take part in the mediation process until mid-November.

In order to avoid the continuation of edit wars, I proposed to you that you edit the article and then ask to have it locked until I was able to participate in Mediation. You, User:Bomac, User:REX and User:GrandfatherJoe reacted with indignation. Then Bomac, with REX's assistance, went ahead and moved the article anyway, thus negating the very need for dispute resolution. And now you come and ask if the article should be locked. How do you spell "hypocrisy", FlavrSavr? Well, hold your horses, because REX and GrandfatherJoe (a possible sockpuppet of REX) have already asked that the article be locked. Now that the article reflects your POV, having it locked it doesn't look so bad anymore, does it? And all of a sudden, the likelihood of an edit war is alarming to you! Two days ago it was not.

Furthermore, REX and GrandfatherJoe justify "their" request by saying that the multiple redirects have completely messed up the article and its talk pages. Except that it was their own redirecting that caused the mess in the first place. Just look at the edit history. Well, unfortunately it all looks like a plan to me.

I find your behavior (WRT this instance of arbitrary and unilateral action) thoroughly dishonest. I intend to participate in Mediation starting in the second half of November, and intend to request an Advocate, one of unimpeachable neutrality and knowledge of the region, in order to assist me. For the time being I cannot and will not submit to such disingenuous and back-handed behavior. Chronographos 00:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The plan proceeded like clockwork. Some admin fell into the trap, and just locked the articles in their present, unilaterally changed form. Well done! I am not holding my breath waiting to see what steps you will take to ensure that "freedom" is restored. Chronographos 00:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Chronographos, Dbachmann pointed out that we cannot impose common usage to this term, not knowing that the term was already in common usage. After proving that he was wrong about the "common usage", and not answering my questions in the RfC, I can only assume that he doesn't hold that position, or if he is, he is now willing/able to prove it. I would be glad if he does prove this claim. --FlavrSavr 07:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the claim that in the June poll the majority voted for the "Macedonian Slav" label is a blatant lie. The poll was a draw. 29:29. As you actually don't see the need to see the outcome of that poll, and claim that it was a majority, by default, please see this Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Poll#Outcome. --FlavrSavr 07:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third, your request was unacceptable for several reasons, an I explained in the talk page. I have already stated that, until the naming dispute is solved, I don't intend to get involved in other disputes, and that I will contact an admin these days. I did that, and I don't see any foundation of your accusations for hypocrisy. The mediation request has been made. You refused to accept mediation and these are your words: No need to wait one more day then: I have other priorities (including a couple of Wiki-projects of my own) for the next month or so, therefore I, in my turn, do not accept your Mediation proposal. Those "priorities" didn't stop you to write a whole page of calumnies against me, huh? --FlavrSavr 07:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann is an academic linguist from Zurich, a well-travelled man with a wide variety of interests. Chances are he's travelled to more countries than you have ever heard of. Don't assume what he does or does not know, accept or was persuaded about. Apparently in this disagreement you and he had, you decided what the outcome was. 'Nuff said. I retract what I said about the poll: the outcome was indeed a tie, and I seem to have recalled it wrongly.

You state that you "don't intend to get involved in other disputes". Likewise I don't intend to get involved in mediation until mid-November. I don't see why you get to call the shots and I don't. Unless you want to come and help with my house renovation, that is. It starts Monday. Chronographos 08:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on your request for Mediation in mid-November, I don't see any reason why the article should stay as it is. You have rejected mediation now, and therefore there is no reason why I shouldn't take advice what should be done now. We can have mediation, then. But, until then, neither me, nor the others are obliged to wait for your house preparation. As for the offer for help, I might come, if you guarantee that I'd get a Greek Visa ;). Regards. --FlavrSavr 11:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my house renovation is no reason for the article to "stall". Neither was your exam schedule last month, but you did not pursue the mediation issue then. Apparently only you may have other priorities for a given period of time. Others may not. Chronographos 11:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving?

Why would you leave? I haven't followed all the goings on, but with the amount of time you have in, maybe a break and then come back. Let me know if I can be of any help.--MONGO 02:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to see you upset!

Hi Ed, it's sad to see you go. I hope you find peace at the end of the rainbow... please come back when you feel ready. Mamawrit es ^{& listens} 10:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC) PS -- I moved your "I quit" message up to the top so the Macedonians will see that you are not available to help with mediation right now! Mamawrit es ^{& listens} 10:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]