Jump to content

User talk:Ed Poor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keegscee (talk | contribs) at 04:54, 15 February 2010 (Reverted edits by 69.54.59.126 (talk) to last version by Keegscee). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: 21

I prefer to keep my talk page for Wikipedia business. Matters relating to other projects should be raised with me there or by email.

Thank you. --Ed Poor

Moon's green card

  • In 1981, the American government indicted Reverend Moon for income tax evasion. The government offered to waive his prison sentence if he would leave America, but he refused and was imprisoned for thirteen months. -- Mary Pat Fisher, Living Religions, page 409 [1]

A related quote:

  • Middle-class youths put aside their careers, gave up their worldly possessions, broke off from their girlfriends and boyfriends, and devoted themselves to the religious path. They saw their sacrificial and ascetic way of life as a rejection of the materialistic and hedonistic American lifestyle. However, alarmed parents accused the church of brainwashing their adult children. [ibid]

Preventing School Violence

I have noted your sugestion that the work og Alice Miller and Gavin de Becker could be added to the school shooting article and Put some of their work along with James Garbarino and Ellen de Lara into the Preventing School Violence article and linked it to other pages. Since you are familar with these authors could you verify weather I have reflected their views acuratly. I seem to be meeting opposition when adding links to this page. I believe it is more productive than the other ideas to Prevent School Violence. There doesn't seem to be much else at all about this which makes it even more suprising that people are objecting. Any imput you have will be apreciated. good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have only skimmed one of Alice Miller's books, but I've read two books by Gavin de Becker. Probably the key is to ensure that we are merely listing representative views rather than promoting one particular idea we ourselves favor. This can be hard, because there is a considerable liberal-conservative split over "violence" in general, along with nearly six decades of dispute over whether the "system" or the "individual" is responsible for acts of violence. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at it. I'll do more when I can with the sources available. I am trying to avoid liberal/conservative views and focusing on what the research indicates to the best of my ability. Unfortunately that isn't easy since everyone seems to interpret on the liberal/conservative point of view. I don't completely agree with my sources but I do agree with the most important basics. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one problem is that people can easily overlook research that does not conform to their preconceptions. Before I waded in today, there was nothing about personal responsibility for one's actions or "punishment". In fact, there is still no distinction made between defensive "violence" (like hitting back in self-defense) and aggressive violence (like assault, battery, rape, etc.)
Let's not assume that "the research" is unbiased. I have seen studies on both sides of the issue; so far the article cites only environmental influences and ignores one's own decisions. We need to dig deeper. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are all valid and there is more that needs to be done on the article including recomended guidelines for punishment as well as several other things that I haven't gotten to. I haven't assumed the research was completely unbiased but I do consider it mostly good. At a close look I could point out a few things that weren't quite in proper perspective but those are the things I tried not to put in. One exception is that they cite specific cases that might imply they are the norm even though they don't say so. A statistical analysus would help that or close look at the phrasing. I seem to be opposed about everything I do, I'm not claiming it is complete but I believe it is much better than what was there before which was virtualy nothing. It is good to have someone who has read some of the information thanks. I'm a little suprised by the oppositions since I thought most of it was obvious like stop child abuse and bullying etc. Oh well I'll chip away for a while. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just wanted to tell you that I have retrieved your comments from the school violence page for lack of source and added it to an article that I intend to propose to replace the edited version of preventing school violence. Since your comments were so basic I could easily find sources to back them up. Also if you would like to help edit this version it would be apreciated. It is located at User:Zacherystaylor/preventing school violence. I would especialy like to see something more productive than arming teachers and shooting students at the last minute this makes wikipedia appear foolish but unless I recieve more help from people sincere about improving this article it will probably go to arbitration eventualy so anything you can do will be helpful. Since the opposition I have hardly done anything but now I'll just work on my own page for a while. thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jesus failed

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jesus failed, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable WP:OR

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of American Clergy Leadership Conference

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article American Clergy Leadership Conference, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable Unification Church front organisation. No useful or WP:RS-based content.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Panel at WP NYC

Ed, I've proposed that we do a panel on NPOV, on Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wiki-Conference 2009 page, please let us know if you are game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagle (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm game. [2] --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you said you couldn't attend today (Saturday), does this include your panel tomorrow (Sunday)? If so, please leave a comment there too if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagle (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

btw: if it's rainy and we don't picnic, there's an option to bump our panel a little later but it's hard to say what will happen. I could never find your email, or I'd send you my cell phone. --Reagle (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School violence

Please include sources regarding punishment in preventing or intervening in school violence.Iss246 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that request: it's the right request! :-)
Unfortunately, I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm not a scholar, and I suck at research. (Now I'll have to stand in the corner for using bad language, unless no one can come up with a source proving that such a rule exists! ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite

Hi Ed Poor, I'm sorry but I did not think that your first two changes to this article were all that helpful, which is why I changed them.

OK, you have come up with a reference for 'military dynamite' but you don't insert it as a reference (and I'm not sure why).

I did not add the piece about military dyanmite, it was added by another editor and it has a reference/in-line citation. Military dynamite is not dynamite, that is already stated in the article. The only connection is the (mis)use of the slang term 'Military dynamite'. For the same reason, I'm not sure why you think it is helpful to add "(in its standard form)" form to the WP:lead and yet another statement that 'military dynamite' is not dynamite. There already is a section Difference from TNT which states that dynamite and TNT are not the same.Pyrotec (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about all that. I just want readers to be able to find out about the two kinds of explosives commonly called "dynamite". Strictly speaking real dynamite is what Alfred Nobel made, and it contains nitroglycerin. We military folks, being no fools, avoid using real dynamite because it tends to blow up just when we don't want it to. But we use the same word for our TNT mixture of "military dynamite".
When people watch movies and hear a soldier refer to dynamite, would it be Nobel's old formulation on the newer, more stable kind? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I know about the behaviour (misbehaviour) of NG. 'Military dynamite' is possibly a US term. Looking at its ingredients its generically a plastic explosive, so my preference (but I'm doing other things just now) would be to add to the WP:lead
For military dynamite, see plastic explosive.
and then state in the body of the article that "for military purposes 'dynamite' has been obsolete since (WW II ?) and plastic explosive is used in its place due to its increased safety in use" (for similar such words). I think that this would be a neater solution than terms such as traditional dynamite and military dynamite.Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it entirely up to you. Your user name is impressive. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Japanese cultural artifacts controversy

I have nominated Japanese cultural artifacts controversy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese cultural artifacts controversy (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Enki H. (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Wiki-conference panel

Hi Ed - I started a user subpage so that maybe all of us on the NPOV panel could collude to make our individual discussions more complimentary to each other. Also, to avoid duplicate discussions. Ideas, suggestions for each other, outlines, whatever. I have the subpage here - right now it's just a cut n' paste of the panel. -->David Shankbone 19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you add a few sentence on the gist of your talk for the panel description? --Reagle (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese cultural artifacts controversy

If you have any interest in the matter, please read my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese cultural artifacts controversy (2nd nomination), and then go ahead and look at the all-new version of Japanese cultural artifacts controversy. I would like to know if this radical change might change some minds. Unschool 03:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on questions

...raised on Wikipedia articles and talk pages are "Wikipedia business", Ed. If you don't want to talk about it, at least don't bs in your edit summary. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't please you either way: the comment I erased was a response to comment I made at Conservapedia. Are you saying I can entertain such a comment here, or do you think I'm mistaken and they were referring to a Wikipedia article?
Please let me know, because if I've made a mistake I'd like to apologize. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ah no then, if it was as another Wiki then it is I who have made the error and I apologize, I thought the query regarded an edit here. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Hi Ed. I've just proposed merging Unification Church and antisemitism into Divine Principle. Please join in the discussion, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

Ed - You have been on Wiki a long time....Perhaps you could contribute your tuppence of neutrality at Talk: List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, there seems to be an article on your main site of interest here http://psychicdatabase.wikia.com/wiki/Conservapedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.112.162 (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Conference New York panel

We have moved your "Barnraisings and cross-wiki collaborations" panel from slot B-3 on Sunday to slot B-2 on Saturday, to avoid a scheduling conflict. Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it would also be good if you folks could make some preparations among yourselves about how best to work together on the panel. I'll be sending you all an e-mail on this soon.--Pharos (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick heads up: I've added my name to the panel, along with my proposed topic. By the way, I'm very much looking forward to hearing what you have to say on the subject of neutrality. It was one of the factors that tempted me to participate in the conference! Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 19:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Preventing school violence

An article that you have been involved in editing, Preventing school violence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preventing school violence. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Danny Garcia (activist)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Danny Garcia (activist), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article does not make any claim that, even if substantiated, would meet WP:BIO, nor cites anything other than a single unreliable, self-published, links-page of fellow travellers (neither "significant coverage", "independent" nor "reliable". Author's edit summary in creating this article, clearly demonstrates that he expects somebody else to do the work to turn it into something worthwhile.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UB

(Re: [3]) Haha, sorry about that. I even responded to you on the talk page. Hope I didn't come on too strong myself! Cheers! --King of the Arverni (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frequently too hasty. I must become more like Treebeard. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
Issue X - July 2009
Project news
  • The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 76 FAs, 8 FLs, and 148 GAs. We gained new recognized content in each field, with 4 FAs promoted, 2 FLs, and 3 GAs. Congratulations and a big thank you to all those who worked on these articles!
Member news
Other news
  • I am still working on the categorization matter. With any luck, we should have some results by the end of the month. There are also some discussions regarding project related activities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. One issue in particular that might be addressed is possible elections of new coordinators. Anyone interested in serving in such a capacity is more than welcome to indicate as much.
Related projects news
Member contest of the month
  • The previous contests are still ongoing, because of the extreme amount of time the categorization is taking me. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of July will get an award. Please see the details Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month.
Christianity related news
From the Members

Welcome to the Tenth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.

It has been a long time since the last coordinators election. There is a lot for people to do, and I certainly would welcome seeing any individuals with an interest in such a position put themselves forward as candidates. I in particular would very much like to see some degree of "specialization" in the coordinators, so that, for instance, we might have someone knowledgable about some of the specific Christian faith traditions or other main subjects, like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, art, theology, and so on. If any parties who have experience with some of our faith- or- subject-based content would be interested in being candidates, I would love to see them do so. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page.

John Carter (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by ~~~~

John Carter (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing school violence (again)

Hi, you and I were about the only ones to stick up for this to any degree in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preventing school violence. Somebody or other now has to merge it into School violence. How is it decided who has to do this? The main author of School violence is resisting having anything being incorporated into "his" article. Any ideas? Alarics (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RedKing7

Could I get your views on RedKing7 please? It is with the same article that he has been edit warring with me previously (which caused him to get a seven day ban).

I am asking you because he sought your advice, and as I am contacting another person who was involved in his earlier suspension, I thought that to be fair to him I canvass somebody who might be closer to him.

He now keeps placing a "citation required" on my claim that Britain does not have a diplomatic mission in Taiwan. I have told him the article contains a link under "External Links" to the (British) Foreign and Commonwealth Office website which lists Britain's office in Taiwan, and therefore the inline citation request is unwarranted. I now believe he is trying to prolong an edit war, but is now moving to inserting "citation required" comments instead of editing the text.

To give you some background, the practice has been to date to list "quasi-diplomatic" representative offices in Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine etc on these boards. This consistency has prevented edit wars emerging from tendentious editors advocating geographic-specific issues.

I have repeatedly *repeatedly* told him I was happy to have his policy proposal debated in a central forum, on the understanding that whatever decision is made would be applied consistently to all affected Wikipedia articles.

He refuses to debate the issue, instead repeating again and again and again "there is no British diplomatic mission in Taiwan".

Either he is being wilfully obstructive, or he cannot understand something as simple "of course there is no British mission under the strictest sense of the word, but we make an exception for these quasi-missions and if you would like this exception reviewed please debate it in a central forum".

Or maybe you may think I am not handling him appropriately (see List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom, and at an earlier edit war, Talk:List of diplomatic missions of Ireland).

Could you please suggest what might be the next move?

Thank you,

Kransky (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an editorial issue concerning the way to report the distinction between (A) what a government officially says and (B) what that government actually does. It's related to the overall Two China problem.
It has been US policy to pay lip service to the idea that "China is one country" while simultaneously supporting the independence of the nationalists on Taiwan. (I don't know if the US has "recognized" the Republic of China.) It seems the US wants to maintain de facto military and diplomatic relations with Taiwan/ROC while keeping up the diplomatic fiction that it doesn't challenge mainland China's territorial and political claims over that island.
This is relevant, because the status of the mission indicates the government's real feeling (attitude?) towards ROC. If the mission is an embassy, this implies diplomatic recognition; but this would trigger a temper tantrum (i.e., unwanted consequences) from mainland China. So we "go along" with them in words, while (more or less openly) continuing to provide support to ROC's government.
It's not for Wikipedia to expose this. We should merely say that the US says it has no diplomatic relations, hasn't recognized ROC, etc. We can also report that it maintains certain offices, and describe what this offices do. We can even report commentary by scholars of law and diplomacy to the effect that they regard this offices as tantamount (or equivalent) to consulates or embassies.
But it's important to let the reader know that we are not making any assertions of our own: that we are not drawing any editorial conclusions. We should remain neutral and merely report what outside sources say.
I daresay the same applies to the UK. --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism Borock (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Academic views on Falun Gong

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Academic views on Falun Gong. 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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic views on Falun Gong (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Experience

"experience working online collaboratively to create articles of lasting value"

Is that what you call creating stubs and waiting for other users to add content?76.105.223.232 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't say something positive, Mr. IP....Czolgolz (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a question, and quite frankly a legitimate one. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, Wikipedia used a collaborative model of article development ("Wikipedia is written collaboratively ..." see Wikipedia:About). Stubs, for example, were considered perfectly fine: an invitation for one's peers to help get an article started.
In the last 2 or 3 years, I've seen several objections to this practice. Readers - or at least contributors - seem to want to see much more initial work on an article before it is published. Perhaps they would prefer stub-type contributions no longer even being made.
Anyway, last time I checked, over 1,100 articles which I started were still in existence. This meant that (back then) other contributors considered them worth continuing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean your actual contributions were worthwhile. A bad contribution can be salvaged, but it's still a bad contribution. You may have started over a thousand articles, but most of those were still vague, useless stubs that other people had to edit before they were worth keeping. The fact that you still do this here and other places baffles me - you say "experience", but most experience tends to lead to doing things better. Even more baffling is the fact that some of the stubs you create are about subjects on which you have shown an almost singular focus, such as the Unification Church. It's like leaving dirty laundry around to remind someone else to wash it.
Maybe you could help your case by showing us how many things are on your "deleted contributions" list? 76.105.223.232 (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76.105.223.232, you have now left the arena of legitimate questions and gone to trolling. I suggest you find another hobby. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 08:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have plenty of hobbies already, thanks - this is simply a simple pressing of the issue. If anything about my above comment is truly not "legitimate", I invite you to highlight it for me. 76.105.223.232 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi Ed. I nominated Hyung Jin Nim's article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyung Jin Moon) partly because I think there is too much coverage of Rev. Moon's family here. About half the material on the church seems to really be about the True Family. Please add your opinions if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite temperature measurements

I would welcome your input to the discussion related to the new public domain image of RSS and UAH global temperature anomaly data here: Satellite Temperature Measurements -- Update the Graphic. Thank you. SunSw0rd (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XI - August 2009
Project news
  • The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 75 FAs, 8 FLs, and 147 GAs, with a net loss of one FA and one GA. Our thanks to those who helped keep some other articles listed, and to those who have worked so diligently in improving all of our articles.
Member news
  • Three new members joined this past month, including new members User:116Calvinist, User:Lrnngrbc, and User:Frazz, bringing us up to 295 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members!
Other news
  • Two new pages for the benefit of members of the project have been created. Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Mutual aid society is designed to be a place where editors seeking specific assistance from other members can with luck find others who have the abilities or materials they need, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Special collections is, at this point, the beginnings of a list of publicly accessible special collections libraries which our members might find useful. Anyone who lives near one of the collections listed is encouraged to visit them and see if they can find anything they would like to read or use to improve some of our articles. There are always some discussions regarding project related activities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. I think the timing of the call for elections might have been bad (summer vacation, what was I thinking?), and have thus changed the period for individuals to run to be one of the project's coordinators. Individuals who have a particular interest or knowledge of specific fields within Christianity are encouraged to run, to serve as a kind of "unit coordinator" for that topic.
Related projects news
Christianity related news
From the Members

Welcome to the Eleventh issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.

One area in particular need of attention right now is the content related to the Oriental Orthodox churches. Several of the topics within this field are of great importance, including the churches themselves, their histories, thinking, and some of the individuals associated with it. Unfortunately, the number of people who belong to the churches, and, correspondingly, the number of editors working on that content, is smaller than it could be. Anyone interested in helping to develop this content is more than welcome to look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy page and seeing where they can help out.

John Carter (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 19:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Tyler Hendricks

I have nominated Tyler Hendricks, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Hendricks (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Susuwatari

I have nominated Susuwatari, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susuwatari. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Remurmur (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it's 2 to 1 keep. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gallo

Talk page is better for me - I almost missed your question on Frank Gallo. I was thinking of the artist. I was just looking for his article the other day and was quite surprised that it wasn't there. The little I know: Painting and sculpture, lots seemed to make it into Playboy in the 70's and 80's. Taught at University of Illinois Urbana. Created the Ruby Gulch bar sign. (I think). Smallbones (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Thanks Ed, appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I have no personal opinions on the subject at all; my interest is solely in Wikipedia policy and improving the encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited...

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 07/25/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS

Er... don't mention it. Gran2 18:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment at WT:NOR

I appreciate your support and the good point that you made. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation

Your claim in this edit summary that "article was redirected without the promised merge" is WP:Complete bollocks, as this edit proves. Kindly read the bloody edit history before making accusations of bad faith. Oh, and the reason it was later removed from Divine Principle is most probably because it was badly written WP:OR (including WP:SYNTH) -- an issue with your editing that I believe I've raised with you in the past. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking + bad mouthing != good editing. Please stop making personal remarks; I'd rather you helped me correct the poor writing you complain of. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A full text merge + WP:SPADE = more courtesy than your bad editing and bad wikiquette deserves. Claiming the moral highground whilst making repeated false accusations just makes you look out of touch. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blast from the past

I took a trip down memory lane tonight and discovered that back in 2002 I was Wikipedia's 6th-most-frequent contributor. I was even dreaming about Wikipedia! Well, thank God I've tapered off a bit, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I suggested renaming Unification Church antisemitism controversy to "Divine Principle antisemitism controversy." Please give you opinion on the talk page if you like.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, on the second thought, merge

I just suggested merging Unification Church antisemitism controversy to American Jewish Committee, since that is the main subject of the article. Please comment on their talk page, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and delete

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church antisemitism controversy (2nd nomination). Steve Dufour (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)``[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Smear campaigns

Wikipedia:Smear campaigns, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Smear campaigns and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Smear campaigns during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of True Family

An article that you have been involved in editing, True Family, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Family. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help

Hi Ed. Hope you're well. I didn't even notice that was yours - I was just cleaning out the backlog. Cheers,   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with a little help...

Hi Ed, long time no see. I am quite busy in the real world and I don't do much on wikipedia (at least for the time being). Maybe you can point me to some useful pages dealing with my following questions. Is there something like stalking on wikipedia? I mean editor A follows the edits of editor B and deletes/reverts them in many instances? Or editor A changes the user or talk pages of B? Can B prevent the latter from happening, for example by a request for a selective block of A on B's pages? Northfox (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is. Just look at User:Hrafn's contribs. Stopping such abuse is very difficult. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between class and party in the US

There is already an article Political ideologies in the United States. Please read this article and see if it contains the information you think it should contain, whether it can be updated, or whether part of it could be expanded in a new article. Also consider setting up re-direct pages. (I have not read it yet just skimmed through.) The Four Deuces (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to read it, but I got hung up on making several corrections to the first few paragraphs. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of CSS box model

A tag has been placed on CSS box model requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Tad Lincoln (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of All men are created equal

The article All men are created equal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a collection of quotes, an essay, a reflection? Not a Wikipedia article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Lets finish the merge in the workspace and enact it.PelleSmith (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Layman Allen

A tag has been placed on Layman Allen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ∙ AJCham(talk) 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of First Advent

The article First Advent has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Created as self-admitted WP:OR ("just off the top of my head"), lacking any sources, and with a built-in merge-template (making its creation more than a little WP:POINTy).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MooniesBorock (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulating sources?

[4] = here you seem to be manipulating a news source, and using it in favor of and over and above what is said in books and scholarly sources. Not really appropriate, and contrary to WP:RS. Wikipedia goes by NPOV and WP:RS and WP:V, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We research and find what is said in the best secondary sources, and go from there, not make vague assertions on talk pages of what we think to be true, and try to get sources to match that. Cirt (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least three years of "unacceptable" edits

In tracing your history of WP:OR edits, I found this RfA evidence page and a link to this edit, with the commentary "Ed is an experienced Wikipedian. He knows the first edit was unacceptable: why then make it?" You've known for at least three years that inserting WP:OR and asking somebody else to take on your WP:BURDEN to source it ("Then help me find a source") is "unacceptable", yet you still do it, repeatedly. Why? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It was not original research, but common knowledge.
  2. You are misinterpreting WP:BURDEN.
  3. Unacceptable to you personally isn't the same as "against the rules".

If I add information you are unsure of, then feel free to apply a {{fact}} tag to it; when I have time, I will locate and supply a source.

Note: Your time at WP might be better spent helping others to create articles, rather than making hostile remarks based on your particular interpretations of the rules. For example, WP:BURDEN suggests that you yourself hunt down the missing sources, rather than immediately removing information. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong:

  1. That "An estimated 3 million people, but not through 'natural' disasters as the official name of the period implies. It was socially engineered murder." is not "common knowledge".
  2. No, I am not "misinterpreting WP:BURDEN" -- it explicitly states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" -- in the circumstances under discussion that would be you Ed.
  3. Your editing was described as "unacceptable" before I even joined wikipedia, so describing this as simply my 'personal' opinion is completely clueless.
  4. I do in fact expand articles, including badly-created stubs -- where I see a reasonably whiff of notability and have sources accessible. Scriptural geologists would be the most recent example, but you'll see my hand in most of the articles related to the history of Creationism. However I see little point in wasting time on your UC ejaculations, especially where (as in the case of First Advent) even your fellow UCists find no notability.

This leads me to Morwen's other comment on the evidence page -- that in spite of your years with Wikipedia, you indulge in actions that one would expect of a "newbie". You have become the Peter Pan of Wikipedia Ed, and many wish that you'd grow up. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I show a source for the estimated 3 million people, would that change your tune? If not, then why should I pay any attention to you? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Ed it wouldn't. (i) Because you'd be three years late in doing so. (ii) Because it would not make the information "common knowledge" like you claimed. (iii) Because it would not mean that you weren't wrong about points 2, 3 & 4 above. I would start to "change [my] tune" if you actually started to source the material you added to Wikipedia on a consistent basis. Expecting me to do so because you provide a single source for a three-year old edit is absolutely ludicrous! And as you don't seem to pay attention to Wikipedia policy, I have very little expectation that you'll pay attention to me. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced additions to a BLP article

Please do not add wholly unsourced additions to a WP:BLP article, as you have done at Sun Myung Moon. BLPs should have higher sourcing standards, and editors should work first to properly source assertions, to independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had a source but the MediaWiki software blocked it, and I suddenly had to leave my desk at the same time. I wanted to 'save' this addition and (in the old tradition of 'ignore all rules' and WP:TEAMWORK) I hoped someone would find an equivalent reference. Can you help me find it?
If you'd like to find a reference, please try YouTube. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Verifiable sources

There is a wealth of information and research databases available to you at your local library. Librarians are most helpful. Good luck, and have fun researching in secondary sources! :) Cirt (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note about WP:LEAD

Regarding your edits to the article Hak Ja Han, please note that every single sentence in the article is duly cited. The lede, per WP:LEAD, is a summary of this, and does not require inline cites. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I can go back and self-revert. Thanks for the tip, coach! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not do this again. I have added cites to the lede. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Unification Church, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.Template:Do not delete Cirt (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.
    I think I made it clear way back in 2001 that I was a member of the Unification Church. After a brief flurry of questioning of my ability to write neutrally on this (my favorite topic), User:Larry Sanger and many others decided I was safe. I was even given developer, admin and bureaucrat rights. I cannot recall any time when my church membership was considered a factor in any NPOV dispute, but I'm willing to have my memory refreshed.
    The only trouble I've had is with people accusing me baselessly of pushing a POV. *SIGH* If only they would specify what viewpoint they thought I was pushing, so I could plead guilty or innocent. All I've ever asked is that we include non-liberal viewpoints in political and scientific articles on controversies where the liberal POV gets the lion's share of media attention. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm secretary to a major Unification Church leader and I am staunchly pro-Moon. = please refrain from editing articles on the topic directly, instead suggesting sources and changes on the talk pages. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you this is just a polite suggestion from me, not a formal demand or anything. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything in WP:COI which requires me to refrain as you suggested, but if I have missed it I'd love to see a quote. I always have done my best to abide by WP policies. (I don't think they would have elected me a bureaucrat if they didn't think I understood NPOV.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be either ignorant of site policies, or choose to ignore them on the topic of your conflict of interest. I'd like to just WP:AGF that your conflict of interest blinds you to your ignorance of policies in these areas (WP:LEAD, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP), etc. But even so, as such, best to avoid editing these articles. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[5] This does not mention your key statement of I'm secretary to a major Unification Church leader and I am staunchly pro-Moon. ..... Cirt (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query re conflict of interest

I'm secretary to a major Unification Church leader and I am staunchly pro-Moon.

Have you ever disclosed this before on-Wikipedia? Cirt (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this [6] mean you have never disclosed this conflict of interest before on your userpage until now? Cirt (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Are you now, or have you ever been?" (reminds me of something from the 1950s)
Is this good enough? Early 2002, which I dredged up from the history of my user page. Sorry if this comes as news to you; I only announce it at irregular intervals on article talk pages. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not seem to acknowledge your position in the organization, merely your affiliation with it. Cirt (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which wiki users are aware of what. You still have not answered my question if you have ever disclosed the above statement on your userpage before. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's my position? I don't have any influence, if that's what you mean. Were you considering allowing me to be a source, and cite myself? ;-) I've just been around a long time and know a lot about how the church is organized. I also am more familiar with its teachings than most WPians who write about it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just seems like you are omitting a key data point from your recent disclosure addition to your userpage. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've asked you to coach me on the new sourcing rules, you've spent more time building a case against me than actually teaching me how to follow the rules. I'm going to take some time off until I can figure out what you are really doing and how to respond to it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My question above is quite simple. And the sourcing rules like WP:V, are not new. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Citations

Please, take a moment to read WP:LEAD. You say you are aware of site policies and procedures, but... You see, WP:LEADCITE states: The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. -- You contested the info, thus inline cites in the lede (the exact same cites as those in the article) became necessary. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well I never thought that Father Moon's appointment of his daughter In Jin Moon would be challenged. Is there even now any doubt that she's the American UC church leader? If so, who's disputing this? A published, acceptable source? Or another Wikipedian? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, you're saying that I - the person who put in two different ref's for In Jin Moon's appointment as US church president - am disputing the fact that she is president. Well, one of us is typing too fast and not reading what the other has written. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that the above was referring to the article Hak Ja Han and your recent actions there, correct? Cirt (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Are you by any chance telling me to get a clue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs)
No. Your above comments appear to be referring to a different article other than the one they were intended to address. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dangit, Ed, are you POV pushing again? Stop disrupting this place. You really ought to bar yourself from any Unification and/or Moon related articles; if not, eventually it may happen without your consent, humiliating as that may be. Seriously, Ed, you know better. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do me a couple of favors:
  1. State out loud the POV you think I pushed before.
  2. Tell us all here what POV you think I am pushing now.
Otherwise, be quiet and stop engaging in personal attacks. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out loud? In text? And personal attacks? Ed, I'm trying to give you good advice. You've lost the 'crat bit; you've been de-adminned, you're banned from Intelligent design and all related articles for your previous disruptive POV pushing. If you want to ignore my advice, fine, but don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. I remind you of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Ed_Poor_placed_on_Probation: Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans. I remind you that being warned is not a personal attack, no matter how much you fume and sputter that it is. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving my point. I knew that if you really thought I were guilty of pushing a POV, you would simply saw what that supposed POV was. The fact that you simply repeat and justify your personal attack shows that you yourself don't even believe what you are saying.
(If I've misconstrued your remarks, and you really do think that I've pushed a POV, simply tell me what POV. Thanks! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I'm not going to play your games. You've been warned; watch your step on Moon and Unification related articles. I will not hesitate to block if you continue to disrupt. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were not playing games, you would cite at least one "POV pushing" edit. I've asked you twice, and you have decided not to do this. If you are planning to abuse your power, I will ask you to reconsider. Please email me privately (or post here) when you are ready to change your mind and abide by WP policy. (Note: accusing someone of rules violations without supplying evidence is considered a personal attack. Do yourself a favor and look up the appropriate page, lest you paint yourself into a corner you can't get out of.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Context counts. You state you work for the organization and have a strong bias in favor of it. Thank you for your candor; I've edited for four years and never known or guessed. Never had a conflict with you either (and seldom agreed with KillerChihuahua lately). Yet it normally goes without saying that adding uncited information about attendance at prestigious universities is the sort of edit that flatters the subject. Do you add corresponding information for Unification Church related biographies where the subject had a Community College education or a GED? KC is telling you that it would be a good idea to proceed with discretion. Maybe that's harshly or strongly phrased yet it also appears to be good advice. Rather than respond in a confrontational manner it might be in everyone's best interest if you opened something like an editor review to ask the community for input about how to manage your conflict of interest in regard to that subject. Undoubtedly you have valuable knowledge to share.
Yet also--either explicitly or implicitly--an employment relationship often constrains an editor from being equally candid about the highlights and lowlights of an organization (every organization has its weak points; that's just human nature). The best Wikipedian conflict of interest management I've ever seen was done by an employee of the Comedy Central network: he disclosed his position fully on his user page and never edited an article. What he did do was make certain that his organization's website included information that Wikipedian editors wanted to cite. Sometimes he posted to article talk pages. As a result, every episode of every series from his network was getting an article. His Wikipedia work was worth $50,000 a month to his network. And he never needed to debate an administrator about whether his work was compliant with policy. A good model to follow. :) Best wishes, Durova320 02:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Durova. I'm not actually employed: it's a volunteer position, but I take your meaning. Also, thank for helping me to glean the facts from the drama.

I'm going to hold off on UC-related edits while I digest all this good advice. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being talked about [10]. [11] was ungrammatical anyway. I also think it was wrong: we call you folk that in the UK too, slavishly copying the states. I suspect you need to back off this. Hello and best wishes, while I'm here William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KC, haven't I already apologized for the caption edit? I did not realize that I needed a source for "US", but if that's all it needs I'll go dig up the source. (I wish Cirt, with his superior source-finding skills, would simply do this.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover

Are You sure that it (File:Global-citizen.png) is not a copyrighted book cover that you just took a picture of i.e. a derivative work? You might want to fix the license. feydey (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course I assume it is a copyrighted book cover. I only meant to say that my photograph of it was free-licensed. It was confusing, because I was asked twice, the first time I uploaded it. Then I had to upload it again to get rid of the black margins. I must have goofed up then.
Any suggestions on how to fix this, Feydey? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Global-citizen.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Global-citizen.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Cirt (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

multiple talkpages on subject of Unification Church

You appear to be using multiple different talk pages on the subject of Unification Church and Sun Myung Moon as a type of discussion forum about the topic, rather than a place to discuss improving the encyclopedia and the article itself and suggest independent reliable secondary sources (examples [12], [13], [14]). Please take note of WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Please stop using Wikipedia as a discussion forum and personal message board. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of doing this. Everything I've said about those two topics was intended to help us work together to (1) understand the topics and (2) find reliable sources for them.
  • "The talk page is the ideal place for ... asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references."
  • One function of talk pages is to get the creative juices flowing, so that we know WHAT viewpoints and facts we have to dredge up from the library or Internet. Some of us do the research first (knowing nothing until we find it in a source); others of us already know (or cherish a viewpoint) and need to locate the proper sources, which we often have forgotten.
I'm repeated the two bullet points above, in case you missed them at Talk:Moonie (Unification Church).
I know that Wikipedia is neither a discussion forum nor a personal message board, but I can't "stop" doing something that I'm not doing.
Please help me find sources for the points I am explaining or simply say outright that you refuse to help, in which case I'll just ask KC and Hrafn. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When no independent reliable secondary sources are being suggested or forthcoming, and yet discussion about the topic is dragged out on the talk page back and forth and back and forth and back and forth (eg Talk:Unification Church), then yes, the usage of the talk page in this manner does become inappropriate and contrary to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Cirt (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When admins keep responding and/or the discussion lasts less than 72 hours, I wouldn't call this "dragged out." I know the church: Cirt and Hrafn are experts at evaluating sources; Cirt has shown considerable zeal in finding sources on one UC topic (Moonies (term)).
I'm going to hold off on any more article edits or talk page comments until I can find out how other admins interpret the rules. I find your "warnings" more daunting than instructive. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, when sources are suggested or there is a glimmer of light down the tunnel that at some point sometime in the future sources will be presented, yes, that is an appropriate use of the talk page of an article, most certainly. But using a talk page just to debate a point - back and forth and back and forth - that is not constructive. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Debate implies asserting that one side or another is true. It's been a long time since I've done that anywhere other than my own user page. I'm into NPOV writing, in which contributors work together to present BOTH sides of controversies (sometimes there are more than 2 sides, then we present ALL sides). --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan
Next: Saturday October 10


This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

148 Lafayette Street
between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Here is someone you might know: Joseph Churba. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ardipithecus Unsupported Claims Alert!

Great edit here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SRFoster (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, go along to get along. I've never been blocked unfairly by liberals. I did a 3RR violation once, but that was because I was impatient: it was a valid block.
You must form consensus, or else back off. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America

I have nominated 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nezzadar (speak) 01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The critical historian

A critical historian's goal is objectivity not neutrality. One does not take a neutral stand on genocide and the horrors due to superstition, ignorance and blind faith. Adolph Hitler was a madman. The final solution was mass murder. [15]Kazuba (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was not the only madman; I have in mind Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Josef Stalin, etc. To have blind faith in socialism is more deadly than the bubonic plague and a worse scourge than any narcotic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blind faith in anything is surely the route to madness. TheresaWilson (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen

I have nominated As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tom Knott

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any material against policy on the Tom Knott page, I was unaware of it. Please post the "attacking" content here (or email it to me). I will then remove it from the article. Thanks! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tom Knott

The article Tom Knott has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No articulation of notability (just another journalist), no source other than the topic's own webpage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area
Last: 09/13/2009


This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toru Goto (religious persecution

Hey Ed... Take a look at the current Toru Goto (religious persecution) article. Thanks for you help so far. Maybe you could create a disambiguation page? Dan Fefferman (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toru Goto (religious persecution) Redddogg (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toru Goto (religious persecution). Thank you. Accusations of WP:CENSORship for merely demanding WP:Notability, and claims that editors are "persecut[ing] this article",[16] are not acceptable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dan Fefferman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dan Fefferman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fefferman. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The result was keep. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of News World Communications

An article that you have been involved in editing, News World Communications, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News World Communications. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You made the joke even funnier. FX (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes at article Dan Fefferman

Please do not make controversial changes to articles where you have a conflict of interest, as you did at the article Dan Fefferman. The info you removed was backed up to WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above request amounts to an accusation and contains no evidence. It therefore violates the rules against personal attacks. Kindly do not violate one rule while ostensibly trying to enforce another one. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't talk nonsense, Ed. If you want a dif, ask for one, if you're so senile you cannot remember what you posted in the last week. But don't try to paint a well earned warming as a personal attack. It won't wash. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I show you in the Wikipedia rules where what Cirt did (and you also just now did) is considered a violation, will you apologize? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'll revert the vandalism on the rules. Seriously, Ed, read Cirt's post. Its a basic warning, very civil, more patient in fact than you probably deserve, given your long history of POV pushing. I cannot believe you have the chutzpah to state Cirt owes you an apology for that. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you'd agree to follow the rules. In fact, you've piled on another violation: accusing me of multiple POV violations, without providing any examples. I wonder what motivates you to keep making false charges like this; it certainly has nothing to do with improving this encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, everyone knows you have a conflict of interest with respect to the Unification Church. Stop editing article about it, per WP:COI. Just stop. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone but me. Please cite evidence of this alleged conflict and/or explain why you feel I should stop articles about it (or about related organizations). Otherwise, stop making silly requests like the above. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I am constrained by rules at WP:OUTING from detailing the reasons why you have a direct conflict of interest in this area. If you waive WP:OUTING, I will certainly detail them for you. Hipocrite (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not confusing "conflict of interest" which refers to "multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other" - with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which defines the situation more narrowly:
  1. an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.
  2. contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups
  3. advancing outside interests are more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia
No one has shown any evidence of any of these applying to me. For example, what "aim" do you think I have which is incompatible with the aim of Wikipedia? I fully support NPOV and verifiability. In fact, just moments ago I changed a biased entry about CARP in the Dan Fefferman article to one which correctly attributes the POV that CARP is the "student arm" of the church to a particular advocate of that view. As we used to say in the old days, the formula is A says B about C.

FYI

Hello, Ed Poor. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Heung Jin Nim redirects

I have declined two of your speedy deletion nominations, namely those at Cleophas (Unification Church) and Black Heung Jin Nim affair. No incoming links is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. You are welcome to take them to RfD, but I would suggest first taking care of the title issues present on the eventual target's talk page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Per the discussion here, you have been banned from editing any article or talk page related to Category:Unification Church. I trust it needs no further explanation? Kafziel Complaint Department 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will obey this order under protest, as there has been no "discussion" - only 3 accusations without evidence. Please tell me how to appeal this order. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:KillerChihuahua#Disruption by Ed Poor at his conflict of interest and related links. I can give more, but it will be a PITA and I'll be fairly pissed at you for making me bother, Ed. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's take the first one. I began to change the assertion that CARP is "a Unification Church youth organization" - which as it stood had no source. I said in my edit comment to "see talk", and I explained there at length (for the 2nd or 3rd time) what I was doing and why.
The idea that CARP is an Unification Church organization is misleading, and I explained that it is related to the Unification Church but not necessarily "affiliated". I did not insist on this viewpoint, but rather described it properly and accurately as a dispute between (1) a side calling CARP affiliated (in the sense of subordinate to) the church and (2) a side saying that both groups are part of the larger "Unification Movement"
There is nothing wrong with this edit, is there? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are a paid member of an organisation edit warring on articles related to the organisation. The problem is both obvious and serious. Tim Vickers (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So obvious that not a single example of "edit warring" is needed? In actuality, I've conceded to the majority where there has been a content dispute.
I wish I had a paycheck from this organisation which (you say) is edit warring here. What makes you think I'd agree to take money to subvert something I helped make a world-class project? I'm user #188 here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the organisation that was edit warring, it was you. diff, diff, and diff. You were also move warring. move log These problematic actions were all carried out on articles related to a church in which you are a secretary. If you wish to appeal this ban, feel free, but your edit history on these articles reads very poorly in light of your strong COI. As to your three-figure membership number, congratulations, but it would be arrogant to expect that "seniority" will get you special treatment. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's always nice to get the reason for the slap on the wrist after one has been slapped. Maybe next time I slip back into edit warring, a simple warning (from an uninvolved, non-hostile admin) will be provided. But the good thing about a peremptory ban is that is frees up my time for many more important things. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The warning came when you were placed on probation by the ArbCom. Warnings don't come much bigger than that, and you don't get an endless string of them. I was completely uninvolved and I haven't been hostile at all. If I've been brief, it's because (as you point out, Mr. 188) you have been editing Wikipedia for plenty long enough to know all the ins and outs of the matter and I thought it would disrespectful to treat you like a child. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Unificationists

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Unificationists, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been topic-banned, so maybe I should stay out of this discussion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

The article Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources to establish notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Explodicle (T/C) 13:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought

Edison often rightly claimed protection, but the courts were bad arbitrators, understanding little of the matters under discussion. [17]

Clearly not a good role model for me. Please wait, while I think all of this over. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CSS declaration

Sorry if I stomped on this article a bit harshly, but it was pretty much an open-and-shut example of CSD G12. The subject should probably be discussed in the CSS artilce, as people were pointing out in the talk page, and the table was copied verbatim from another web page, not very gracefully if I may add. Since the amount of non-copied material was fairly trivial, I hope nothing of value was lost. All the best, --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. There was no way for me to know it was your own page; since the source page had no free license specified and didn't explicitly reference the source, that was definitely grounds for G12. Even in this form, the source page isn't exactly in the most proper form; the page should be explicitly licenced under Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0. However, to avoid further hassle, I've undeleted and redirected the page to Cascading Style Sheets, since that already covers the CSS syntax more broadly (and there are usage examples are covered in-depth in Wikibooks). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Just in case you haven't noticed, I took corrected the templates on your talk page as you are way past the 5 year mark of editing. I just figured you had the right to know. And by the way, since I don't want to go editing over at Conservapedia, can you please correct the glaring error on the Cape Cod article that states that Provincetown is the largest town? The correct place is Barnstable, which is a city. Provincetown is the smallest town on the Cape. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for that correction, but I've been taken to task rather sharply for discussing unrelated projects here. If you have something to ask me, please use email. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas article

Hey, dude, you were the FIRST PERSON TO EDIT THE Christmas Article! LOL. The guy who created it, his talk page link is red, so apparently, you can't talk to him here now. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouTubeaholic2009 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I creating Christmas? I think rather I was merely the first "signed-in user" to edit the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service awards proposal

Master Editor Hello, Ed Poor! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards.

If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 01:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service award update

 Hello, Ed Poor! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system.

Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day NYC

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ed Poor! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 753 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Michael McElroy (scientist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. A. James Gregor - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  3. Abd El Aziz Muhammad Hejazi - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  4. John Stauber - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your opinion

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Hi Ed. I think we should go ahead and merge the articles on Heung Jin Nim. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been banned from editing or discussing articles on the Unification Church. Apparently they think I have a conflict of interest. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:NPOV-religion

I have nominated Template:NPOV-religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Edwards (2nd nomination)Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lxs

Template:Lxs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&oldid=344152601"