User talk:Ed Poor

regarding Adam Carr

A RfC has been started against Adam Carr and seeing that you have a past history with him we would like a outside view of this current RfC of him. If you would be so kind as to visit this RfC of him and make a comment of the current actions we have submitted. Thanks --Scott Grayban 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Calendars

		The Template Barnstar
		I, Gabriel Hurley (aka Munchkinguy) award you the Template Barnstar for creating a solution to automate the "hilighted date" changing on Wikiproject Calendars --Munchkinguy 04:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm glad someone reckognizes all the good this man has done for wikipedia--F.O.E. 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed

I just wanted to let you know you still have my support. And the brainwashed spineless many and the mindless many and the screwed up crats and mins are all going to the dogs. Cause they are. Cause I said so. So there.

And down with the Wikipedia that hardly anyone can edit. And up with the new Wikipedia that anyone can edit. YaY 203.234.156.4 03:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It truly is sad to see you depart us within such a nick of time. You were a good editor, no matter what anyone says. I'll miss you and I'm sure numerous others will as well. Godspeed. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything's gone to the dogs! Boo hoo hoo. Sunray 22:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Things were so much better back in the day. Men were real men, women were real women, and no one but white Christian heterosexual males had any say in anything. JF Mephisto 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A new userbox you might like

Hi Ed,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )

Cheers,

 Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  06:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WP: Policies & guidelines This Wikipedian is proud to be a “Bureaucratic F**k”.

I wish you had resisted. (I might have to "come back" now, and finish the job. ;-) --Uncle Ed 19:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean you liked or hated the userbox? It's a bit hard to figure out your reaction from that line Ed = ) . Anyway, it got speedily deleted though there's enough support for a DRV: User talk:Netsnipe/User Bureaucratic F**k judging from the comments I've recevied so far from other admins/editors. Cheers,  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It was funny, but the speedy delete seemed justified to me. I no longer feel that "fighting fire with fire" is any sort of viable option around here, even in jest. Liberal bias has too much of a grip on Wikipedia now. --Uncle Ed 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology

It was appreciated. --ScienceApologist 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Observation

Come now Ed, you know you implied an opinion on materialism (and your edit history does indeed speak volumes). Thus, what you term a personal attack, was in reality, an observation based on nearly a year's experience. I'm sorry you took it as an attack, but that was not the intent. Oh, BTW, should you wish that I post an NPA warning on your page each time you start your "FM and his gang" bit? I will, if you'd like. •Jim62sch• 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already taken that back (in good faith) [1], but if you feel it's necessary I don't mind. I'd like us all to be courteous to one another. Any wording I place on a talk page which is offensive to you (even by mistake) is something I will work hard to avoid! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet your personal attack against me there still stands... You chose to personalized your difficulties at the project as being "railroaded" by "FM and his gang." There's a level of hypocrisy here in your actions that makes your claim of desiring nothing more than courtesy more than a bit disingenuous. This a is case of reaping what you sow Ed; I'm sorry you find that difficult to accept, but there it is. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To "railroad" is

• To convict (an accused person) without a fair trial or on trumped-up charges.

Your RFC against me is indeed based on trumped-up charges. If you'll withdraw the false charges, I will stop criticizing you for having made them. This is the last deal I intend to offer you. Choose wisely. --Uncle Ed 19:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I don't see the RfC being based on trumped-up charges. You really were quite obstinate the last time you were here at Wikipedia. You created policy that looked like gaming the system, you claimed that the edits you wanted to make were minor but when someone reverted them they were engaging in "mass reverts", and when discussion actually was attempted you disappeared (as happened on Talk:Creation-evolution controversy). Now you seem to be accusing FM of creating a cabal, and yet you still maintain that the RfC is trumped-up? --ScienceApologist 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Threats and personal attacks? Is this your idea of "turning over a new leaf"? Your RFC was endorsed by far more than just me, Ed. Get real. FeloniousMonk 19:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made no threat. And it's not a personal attack to complain that your RFC was trumped up. In fact the very first piece of "evidence" is false on its face, as at least one other user has noted.

Your relentless campaign of accusing me of disruption and other violations has to stop. Otherwise, I'm going to stop ignoring it. That's all I'm saying. Please stop reading sinister motives into all my attempts to get you to comply with Wikipedia policy. You've already been warned by an Arbitrator.

But don't hold your breath. I simply don't have the time to counter your attempts to subvert NPOV on a full-time basis. I just wanted to give you a fair chance, because until about 2 years ago, you had often helped me create good articles. I don't know what changed since then that would make you want to attack me - a perceived weakness, perhaps? You'd be better off simply working on neutral articles instead of attacking me. --Uncle Ed 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are making threats. No one said legal threats. Your RFC was not "trumped up". It was fair. But you chose to ignore it. As for personal attacks, how about "your attempts to subvert NPOV"? How about your false accusation that the RFC was "trumped up"? Guettarda 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you believe in tit-for-tat - which is actually against web site policy. It's not a personal attack to say that FM is subverting NPOV: that'll be in his upcoming RFC if it comes to it. And it's not a threat to announce that I plan to stop someone from violating policy. Check WP:NPA. --Uncle Ed 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying "to stop someone from violating policy" sounds a lot like Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to me. --ScienceApologist 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Take it back or else" (Ed's edit summary here[2] is a threat. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly take it that way...but then, my last observation was apparently a personal attack so what the hell do I know? •Jim62sch• 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Newbie1

Template:Newbie1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Alphachimp ^talk 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Ed

Hi Ed, it is good to see you back. It is not so good to hear you say things like "Liberal bias has too much of a grip on Wikipedia now." This POV will not help you in your relations with other editors and, I suggest, it will also not help you deal with wikistress. I submit that there are better ways to view Wikipedia at present. Take a look at the growing number of Featured articles and Good articles we now have. Or consider the number of projects aimed at further improving this amazing encyclopedia. After a period of explosive growth, Wikipedia is settling down to a much more mature and stable entity.

A word about the folks you have referred to as a "gang." I have a great deal of respect for some of these editors, who have taken a contentious topic (Intelligent Design) and established clear criteria for editing the article. Sure they each have a bias (as do we all), but they have worked out a consensus for the page that has resulted in steady improvements. Your own POV may militate against you editing this article without getting highly stressed and conflictual. If this is the case, why not edit somewhere else? Wikipedia is huge and there are many worlds within it.

I've interacted with you for almost three years on this project and have seen you do good work at times, get hooked into conflict at other times, get stressed and leave more than once. If I could offer you some welcoming back advice, it would be this: follow the precepts on your own User page and when in doubt, re-read the suggestions for dealing with wikistress. Best wishes, Sunray 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that bit of "sunshine". :-) I'll try to follow the part about staying out of conflict, but my perception of bias stands. In fact, the bias runs so deep that it can be hard to see.

If too many people develop a "consensus" POV on a topic, they might be unaware of the fact that they have a POV.

However, it might also be useless to try to change this. If 'Liberalpedia' has matured into a stable consensus to exalt the Liberal POV over all other POVs, then who am I to try to call for reform? (I'm not the voice of God.) To a return to the original Neutral POV that Larry Sanger attempted to champion? When I was one voice in 1,000 it made sense, but I'm seriously outgunned these days.

However, it does behoove me to take a more mellow approach, and if you see my getting stressed or conflictual please remind me to chill out. :-) --Uncle Ed 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your comment about users who develop "a 'consensus' POV on a topic." There is a danger that they may be unaware of the fact that they have a POV. This can lead to what in consensus decision-making is seen as a tendancy to become consensus thugs. Fortunately, there are policies and guidelines in Wikipedia that tend to minimize this; but it can crop up in various places. I tend to stick my nose in on these sorts of things, at times, but it does require an extremely low level of wikistress to pull it off.

I'm not convinced that you are right about "Liberalpedia" — that Wikipedia "has matured into a stable consensus to exalt the Liberal POV over all other POVs..." You link to the article on Media bias. It seems to be a common POV of the American right that such a bias exists. While I think that it is arguable, even in the U.S., the situation is dramatically different in other parts of the English-speaking world. For one thing, Liberals are not considered "the left" in many countries (e.g., Canada; Scandanavia) where there are "liberal" parties that are variously neoliberal or neoconservative (i.e., right of centre). More importantly, in the debate in the U.S. (and, by extension in Wikipedia) the argument of "liberal bias" simply does not stand up when hard facts are applied. Nevertheless, if liberalism is placed at the centre (and many would argue that true liberalism — however rare — is centrist), then it may represent the middle ground between left and right...

All this makes my head hurt, Wikipedia seems to me to be to big for such facile generalizations. Why bother? Sunray 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, and perhaps Liberal bias is the wrong term. Further, I daresay I expect too much of an open, collaborative wiki-based project. Without an editor-in-chief, the project cannot help but resemble recess in the school playground -- without any teachers watching. The sort of place Jill and Eustace needed Divine Rescuing to escape (see The Silver Chair).

I wrote a friend privately about this, but his reply was not encouraging:

• While I deplore the approach they use (on all kinds of topics), it's very hard to convince others how what they do is problematic. It takes an understanding of the nuances and shades of grey in each specific issue to see [beyond] a superficial outside analysis ... and, subtle incivility aside, the chances of any serious censure against them are slim. I'd rather not get involved in what has the potential to be a nasty dispute, especially against editors who have far more time than I do to mount defenses and counterattacks.

This is the sort of thing which Larry bemoaned, and when funding for his position was cut 50% and then eliminated, he returned to university life.

I should probably spend more time on the UPF Encyclopedia Project. WP can be a feeder for UPF. --Uncle Ed 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed, Ed, you hang out on some of the most contentious pages in Wikipedia and then get all pessimistic about its potentiality. Larry made a great contribution to Wikipedia but the fact is, an editor-in-chief is antithetical to what WP stands for, as are "expert" written articles. That is the Britianica model and Wikipedia has blown the doors off the pretension that one can package up human knowledge and sell it door to door. Larry's project to do that stalled. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has continuted to mature. Take a good look around. Have you considered the progress made with the FAs, the GAs, WP Version 1.0, the Portals and the many projects to improve various subject matter fields? Why not just relax with it? You don't have to go anywhere, anounce your departure, slam doors. Why not come and go as you please. Enjoy yourself. Tarry awhile and learn. Sunray 06:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you know, you're right. I'm all heated up about global warming, and I've evolved into an demented ogre at Intelligent Design. Perhaps if I devoted a smaller amount of time to the controversial aspects of Wikipedia I could contribute more. --Uncle Ed 13:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

DDT use

Very interesting - I hadn't heard of any of this. I'll have to bring it up in my environmental science class. Very well then, I guess the editorializing in Crichton's article can stay out. --Liface 21:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

MONGO on wikipedia has impersonated you on Encyclopædia Dramatica as one of the sock puppets he used to vandalize their article about him, the other is MONGO1. I would link to proof to ED's "MONGO" article but MONGO has ordered me not to link to it (he has also removed the link to it from the article so you will have to see the article's history for the link). I am asking for a statement that it was not you. DyslexicEditor 00:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not me. --Uncle Ed 13:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Long story, but it wasn't me either...and so you know, I would never use yours and any other wikipedians username somewhere else.--MONGO 04:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have struck through my innacurate comments and I apologize. DyslexicEditor 06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

email

I have emailed you about something that others have been preventing people from telling you. If you do not receive it, please respond on your talk page. Dagedzil 08:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Age template

I haven't seen the history of my userpage until now, and therefore, haven't had a chance to thank you hitherto. So, here are my thanks for the age template, it's real convenient (now I won't have to edit my userpage as much)! BTW, welcome back! It's good to see you've made the right decision. Aaрон Кинни (t) 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Heat wave

Let's talk about cutting the scholarship about heat waves. It is an intersting fact, little known, appropriate for an encyclopedia. Why do you think it is not germane? I think the cut reflects POV. Consider comments made [here]. I won't revert now, but please explain. Thanks. Castellanet 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If by "reflects POV" you mean Wikipedia:POV pushing, then you've got my attention. I wrote that essay years ago. I support the Arbcom prohibitions against "point of view editing", too. But please see Talk:U.S. Heat Wave of 2006 for my reasoning. --Uncle Ed 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, our edits crossed, I will follow in the appropriate place. Thanks for returning, engaging. I hope you'll find this debate enjoyable, not frustrating. Castellanet 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You've been promoted with another mop! Luck you. Castellanet 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to "Shut out"

Yes, I'd be willing to participate in the effort that you describe. However, I'm going to be on vacation for most of next month, and them I'm moving to a different country the month after that. Thus, it could be several months before I have regular access to a computer or the time to be able to give productive participation. But, I would be interested in participating when I'm able to do so.

I'm fortunate in that, so far, I've been left to my own devices in most of the articles or projects I work on (WWII Pacific Theater battles) so I haven't had to deal too much with edit conflicts. However, whenever I've tried to participate in more controversial subjects, the experience usually hasn't been very enjoyable or productive. The vast majority of the administrators and editors who primarily participate in the military history project articles are very easy to work with. That doesn't always appear to be the case with some administrators and editors in other subject areas. Ironic, isn't it, that much less "warring" takes place with the "war" articles. Cla68 19:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is! Good luck on your move, and I'll see you when you're ready. --Uncle Ed 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm ready now. By the way, what ever happned with the arbitration case you were involved with in August and September? I can't tell what happened by looking at the case page since there's nothing under "Final Decision." Cla68 01:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Slogan: Hey-hey, ho-ho, Bush's war has to go!

I have nominated this article in Wikipedia:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. It has degenerated to a redirect to an article that succumbed to deletion. Dufekin 18:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not a notable slogan, then. Okay. --Uncle Ed 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

your comments

Hi, Uncle Ed. I just read your comments here Wikipedia talk:Do not insult the vandals. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was wondering if you cared to add your support of this questionableness of Removing personal attacks. I would really appreciate your support in this. Thanks a lot. Shannon^{duck talk} 01:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Another take: [3] KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Radical environmentalism

Ed, that's mean. It sets up such a good joke, but I can't make it, because that would be an inappropriate insult.  :( (But hey, thanks for the laugh, I needed it this morning). Guettarda 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're a friend, you can make a joke. Geez, I'd even FM can make a joke if he'd only remember to mark it as a joke.

And, yes, I have indeed made yet another one of my chameleon-like changes. Watching Thérèse and reading a few books on human relations has helped improve my wiki-attitude. (Er, is it showing yet? :-) --Uncle Ed 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I made the comment here and not over there. After all, you probably aren't the only Unificationist on Wikipedia. And thanks for the F-word. While you sometimes frustrate me to the point of anger (which means that I obviously take WP too seriously), I still like you (especially in this colour) and like to consider you a friend (hey, after all, you voted support on my RFA!) Anyway, I'm in a stressed mood this morning, and your comment (+ the obvious response) made me grin. So thanks! Guettarda 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter, etc.

1) I like your comments on how to handle the article on Godless, which I understand to be "state her views, then fire at will." I'd also be in favor of keeping the views and the comments on them separate. Not "In this chapter she says A (I hate A, so do I, and so do I) and B (all of us hate B, and by the way, wasn't A really awful?) and C. (and ten of us have a lot to say about C)," but "In this chapter she says A and B and C," followed somewhere by all the opinions.

2) I'm wondering if there are any guidlines for articles on books, and specifically if there are different ones for reviewing fiction and nonfiction. (I like what I see at The DaVinci Code).

3) The Ann Coulter article seems to be an endless stream of "she said this awful thing," "she's controversial and said this long list of awful things," etc., even if most of the awful things are notable only because they're over the top (most of them appeared in her column or somebody else's; some caused controversies, but most really didn't). Is there any cure for this? (I don't see similar stuff in other articles about controversial figures such as Jerry Springer, Maureen Dowd, Louis Farrakhan, Rush Limbaugh, etc. When I point this out, it falls on deaf ears. Maybe I'm missing something about what is appropriate in an encyclopedia.

Any advice will be appreciated. Lou Sander 18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, Lou, I've given it a lot of consideration and frankly I'm stumped. I chalk it up to Coulter's book being in that tiny 1% (or 0.1 percent?) of topics that are so controversial that Wikipedians simply can't "agree to disagree" long enough to collaborate on neutral writing.

The global warming series has similar problems, as well as everything relating to the Second Gulf War (like the gitmo detainees).

Getting back to Godless, I propose the following:

1. brief intro: it's a book which equates Liberalism with religion, best-seller, & Ann is 'shrill'
2. the elements of 'liberal religion' as expressed by Coulter (a) in the book, (b) in interviews about the book; (c) described/summarized by others; (d) similar views (like Michael Crichton on Radical environmentalism)
3. a lengthy section on rebuttals, criticism, etc.

I don't care how long #3 is compared to #2, although 90% to 10% would be rather severe. As long as Coulter gets first say.

It's easier for the reader if an article about someone's point of view describes that POV first. And only after that, gets into all the reasons that opponents have opposite points of view. --Uncle Ed 18:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. GMTA.

I thought I was doing some good a week or two ago by posting a few paragraphs from Godless in the Godless article, just to show what the author was actually saying. I made the big mistake of putting them into a pre-existing section about "creation science". Needless to say, anybody who ever heard of evolution jumped all over it, savaging the quotes and their summaries, etc. (Oh, well, it's only words.)

I, too, am starting to think that Ann Coulter may be just too controversial for typical editors to deal with. One aspect is that most people very likely haven't read her books, and probably haven't read much in her columns. All they know about is the outrageous remarks she makes on TV, plus the response to her books and columns by those whose ox she is goring (or who might just be engaging in dueling outrageousness). Otherwise reasonable people just seem to go crazy when writing or thinking about her. Thanks again for responding.

BTW, kudos to Wikipedia. I'm sort of following Wikipedia articles on Cunt and Nigger, mostly to see how Wikipedia folks deal with potentially volatile stuff like that (also I'm very gently copy editing Cunt, because it badly needed it.) It is MOST impressive how Wikipedia handles these two easily-vandalized, easily-hated, easily-messed-up topics. Kind of takes the breath away, in fact. Lou Sander 02:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

What is up with you? You wade into an article, make substantive, unsourced changes, and then refuse to discuss them on talk? With each passing day you are becoming more disruptive, with some edits bordering on vandalism. If you can't work and play well with others, if your behaviour is so mercurial that it's unclear to the community which Ed we're dealing with, it might be time for you to reflect upon what your goal is here. You've made quite a few good edits in the past, but at present the same simply cannot be said. Whether you and I agree on certain subjects is not the issue here, that you are becoming increasingly disruptive is. •Jim62sch• 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. I discussed the changes in Edit summaries, same as FeloniousMonk. And none were substantive, I merely reworded what was already there. Plus I added a source (despite what you said here).

Your becoming more disruptive remarks amount to a personal attack. If you disagree with my edits, simply say so, and try to follow Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks. Or is this simply a tit-for-tat?

The only thing I am "disrupting" (to borrow your wording) is the tendentious editing of those who insist on making biased articles which exalt one side as 'correct' - I follow NPOV policy by adding balance, i.e., material which advances the opposing POV.

Perhaps you are unaware of web site policies (as created by the community and upheld by the arbcom - which I helped form, by the way :-) such as these:

• ...the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each, and
• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.

Do you agree with these statements? Do you think they reflect community consensus? (If not, you can try to get the community to change them, but that's going to be hard.)

Some POV pushers have accused me of "POV editing", as if adding balance to an article were somehow opposed to NPOV. I daresay only someone who is so devoted to their own position that they don't even realize that it is "point of view" could object to the addition of information that describes the opposing point of view. --Uncle Ed 14:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the buttinski, but telling someone they are disruptive is by no means a personal attack. It's a criticism of behavior. We absolutely must tell disruptive editors that they're being disruptive- how else do we get them to stop? Ed, also, keep in mind, this is far from the first time others have expressed concern about bias in your edits- you keep insisting that you're the neutral one and that the other editors are the problem. Isn't is possible for there to be room for improvement on everyone's part? Friday (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not butting in at all, glad you stopped by! :-)

If anyone can show how an edit of mine is biased, I'm always glad to hear it. About a year ago, you showed me that a single edit to wolf hunting seemed to introduce bias into an article, thus reducing its neutrality (slightly). I forget how we left that, but I came away from it convinced that whoever corrected it did a good thing. (I think I said something about how one side regarded the use of helicopters, but failed to source the POV clearly. IIRC the impression was something like "this kind of hunting is cruel and unethical" rather than what it should have been: "Certain advocates (cite needed) called this kind of hunting cruel and unethical."

But in general, adding information about someone's POV (when properly labeled as POV and sourced, etc.) should never be considered "bias in edits" or "POV pushing". The arbcom recently clarified that It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view.

What do you think this statement about removal implies about insertion? My take is that it's not "POV pushing" or "point of view editing" if a contributor inserts a description of some published advocate's POV. In fact, if the article is slanted toward a POV (i.e., deserves the {{pov}} tag, then such and insertion would balance the article.

This is what I specialize in: providing needed balance. The last thing I want to do is take an article slanted one way, and convert it into an article slanted the other way - trading one bias for another! --Uncle Ed 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Benny Peiser

Regarding one edit: 17:08, 24 July 2006 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change".)

The original Dec 2004 essay in Science reported the words "climate change" in two places. "That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9)." "9.The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change."

This reportedly was corrected by Science to "global climate change" in the Jan. 14 2005 issue, which requires login on the site so unfortunate, I can't quote it or see if it was a change or a retraction instead. That information is from Dr. Pieser's letter on his website where Etta Kavanagh, an Associate Letters Editor said "A correction dealing with the mistake in the search terms ("global climate change" vs. "climate change") was published in our Jan. 14 issue." It's also been reported on the RealClimate blog as well as a Washington Post Editorial by Dr. Oreskes.

Message from Oscar Bravo

Hi Ed, I'm not sure if this is the correct way to "leave a message" for someone; maybe you could correct me if it's wrong. Anyway, I left a reply to your message on my talk page.--Oscar Bravo 10:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Extension of Template:Age

Hi there. I've put comments at the talk page for Template:Age that you might be interested in. My comment attempts to address the concern of those who feel that having dynamic content doesn't work if the encyclopedia has "snapshots" taken (eg. for print, CD, or "frozen") versions. To that end, I was wondering if the template could be tweaked to display (next to the age calculated) the date on which the age has been calculated. This "date calculated" would further be labelled to appear only on print (or other frozen) versions of the encyclopedia.

ie:

• Print: "At the time of writing (31.05.2006), Joe Bloggs was 45 years old."
• Dynamic version: "Joe Bloggs is currently <template> years old"

Possibly, the current age bit should be dropped entirely for print versions, as it looks a bit silly. Is there a way to label such things as "not for print", similar to how the redirects are labelled? Carcharoth 12:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A challenge

Ed, I just wanted to call your attention to a "challenge" I made for you [4], in case you overlooked it in the busyness of the GW talk page. Dragons flight 15:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The POV periphery

Ed, I am concerned that your approach to over global warming seems to have spilled over into creating anti-GW articles on peripheral topics. Consider Benny Peiser; it's not so much a biography as a global warming dispute with a bit of biographical header. Is that the only notable thing he ever did? Similarly, climate cycles is a one sentences header followed by lines about the significance of Dansgaard-Oeschger events as a challenge to global warming. Neglecting in the process to either link to the D-O page or mention that the classical D-O cycles (as defined by Dansgaard and Oeschger) were associated with very large fluctuations in North Atlantic sea ice that stopped 23 kyrs ago. Identifying any modern process with D-O cycles is going to be controversial. And what about any other climate cycles (e.g. ice age, El Nino, North Atlantic oscillation)? Dragons flight 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring your personal remarks (frustrations), I will respond to the part of your message that relates to improving Wikipedia articles.

Contrary to your assertion, I have not created any "anti-GW articles", to my knowledge. If any article I've created recently presents only one POV on a controversial subject, I encourage you to add any other relevant perspective.

I admit to being a bit ignorant on the best way to describe someone's work. Is it best to create an article whose title is the person's name, and then describe their work there (like Naomi Oreskes), or is do our guidelines suggest creating an article whose title reflects an aspect of their work (like Oreskes report)? If it's the latter, I would have no objection to your use of the "move" function to rename Benny Peiser to Peiser report. I just figured it was easier to describe a person's views in the "article about them". After all, the main reason we care about Oreskes and Peiser is because of what they've said about the global warming consensus. I have no interest in biography, but much curiousity about science.

I had not known there was an article about Dansgaard-Oeschger events, or I would have included them before lunch. :-) I've added a link now.

The new Climate cycles article should have been tagged as a stub. I'm sorry if I forgot to do that. The Milenkovich cycle should be referenced, and other (20,000 year ice age?) cycles should be added as well. If I gave the impression (by taking a lunch break!) that I regarded the article as finished, I apologize. I thought it was obvious that the article had barely gotten started.

As for shying away from reporting information that relates to controversial issues, I think this would be a mistake on your part or mine. Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Let's work together to provide a balanced presentation on all GW-related articles. --Uncle Ed 18:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Extreme caution must be used, in order to keep people from seeing articles like Climate cycle as a POV fork. Right now this article appears to present the POV of the NCPA as though it were truth. Given that NCPA is a conservative political organization, not a scientific one, I'm not sure how much relative weight their views should be given. I'll chime in on the talk page and suggest this get merged somewhere in order to present this information in more context. Perhaps (if it's not already done) it would make sense to clearly seperate political POVs about GW from scientific ones. Friday (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. Another reason to be cautious about splitting off small articles- things like Global warming consensus have already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_warming_consensus. Friday (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all that, Friday, thanks. And it's still only Wednesday! ;-)

On the other hand, if you can divine the difference between political and scientific controversy, you're a better analyst than I am.

Global warming is the paramount politico-scientific turn-of-the-century dispute. There's even a controversy over how much of the "scientific support" for and against GW is politically motivated. Er, what's Wikipedia's position on this controversy?

(Slaps own forehead) Oh, of course, we don't have a position on that any more than we have a position on what the best economic system is. We merely report that socialists favor socialism, and Capitalists favor free markets. </sarcasm> (sorry, couldn't resist) --Uncle Ed 18:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. I've just redone the Peiser article and did the same for the Oreskes article last week. These are people - a biographical article that is solely about some conflict appears to be a POV pushing effort rather than genuine NPOV wiki editing. The two article mentioned were ~90% about the controversy (unevenly presente I might add) with very little about the individuals in a biographical sense. I have removed much of the controversy stuff, it's covered adequately elsewhere, and tried to make both articles more biographical - although I know little about either of them. At least you could have categorized and stubbed them for reference, you've been around here long enough to know that. Also your statement: the main reason we care about Oreskes and Peiser is because of what they've said about the global warming consensus strikes me as quite absurd and highly POV. I didn't know of Peisner before this, but was well aware of Oreskes books on Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics. They are far more than this transient controversy. Vsmith 18:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I started the Oreskes biography to get all that I could find out there into one place, the start of which was detailed in my comment about the lack of information on her in the GW article, even though 1) her essay was cited as "supporting that a 'strong scientific support for man-made global warming' implied alternative theories are not widely held", 2) her name was spelled wrong in the GW article, 3) she was incorrectly identified as having a job as a scientist (if I remember correctly), 4) it was suggested I write one. I attempted to be as factual as possible with the facts about her (! lol that reads funny) and include as much detail about her, including the essay. Difficult to talk about that without mentioning the controversy and her response to it (And the blogs and so on) which seem to be the major way she's known that I've seen searching the Internet and blogs and published works.

I fully expected the article to be seen as at least somewhat lopsided, but I tried to make it as neutral as I could and get the info out. That's why I linked it to the Scientific opinion on climate change rather than trying to rewrite something. I also fully expected somebody else to come in and balance it from an editorial perspective, or at least from a different perspective.

Looking at some of the original way the Peiser one was, I see more detail gone into for a bio page, but I don't see anything I'd call POV, rather just a larger focus on the controversy than a bio page probably needs. It might have been fine for something about the essay or the controversy, not that it could probably go anywhere that hasn't already been done about the subject. I just think we both put in as much detail as we could think of, and let others make it better. --Sln3412 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Describing points of view

If phrases like "POV fork", "POV pushing" and "highly POV" you all mean to denote "edits that move an article away from neutrality and make it biased", then I am only partly in agreement with you.

I agree that edits as a whole (and even each edit, taken by itself!) should move the article (or a series of article) toward a balanced, neutral treatment of the topic. This takes extra concern and energy when treating controversial subjects.

Now it may be so that several of my personal opinions on controversial matters are in the minority at Wikipedia. I prefer Bush to Gore, for example. That puts me in what would be a 50-50 position (roughly) among U.S. voters, but I daresay I'm outnumbered 90-10 or more here on the wiki.

But I don't mind (it doesn't gore my ox ;-) being a minority among contributors on political subjects. Wikipedians are usually able to step back and say, "Even though everyone who disagrees with my favorite party or candidate is clearly wrong, I'm willing to 'write for the enemy' a bit and cast this article in terms which fall short of endorsing the POV I favor."

Sometimes the political controversy is also religious or scientific. Then it's more than twice as hard: it's "hardness squared". The politics of the evolution debate, or the "gay gene" debate (with all the mudslinging) seems to "muddy the waters".

Who can stand above the fray and write a neutral article on a topic they feel strongly about? Most days I think I can, but I'm the first to admit that I've had my bad days.

Perhaps the touchstone is: if readers can't tell which "side" a contributor is on from an edit, it's probably neutral. Better yet, if readers from both sides look at the article and say, "I can't tell what Wikipedia's stance is on this issue", then we will have succeeded. --Uncle Ed 19:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There's the old saw about everyone being entitled to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts. Ed, off the top of my head, I'm guessing you're on the side of "scientists do not agree that humans are contributing significantly to global warming." Obviously that's a bit vague- which scientists do I mean? No single group or person can claim to speak "for science". However, it does seem clear to me that it's fair to say there is substantial scientific consensus on this issue- far moreso today than there was, say, 10-15 years ago. Alas, I guess getting into our own points of view is a bit off topic. But I daresay many editors have formed opinions about what which side you're on, based on your editing behavior. Friday (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Darn! I thought my personal opinions on this matter were completely opaque (like the atmosphere of Venus, which we all know shows no warming trend at all! ;-)

No, you got me, or close enough to make your point. Contributors like me and Dr. Connolley have obviously taken positions. The question is, how can a writer who has a position keep it from leaking into their writing?

While we're off topic, I may as well come clean: I'm "biased" (there, I've said it) in favor of Lindzen (because my mom went to Sloan School) and in favor of Baliunas (because I used to go sledding on the hill where Harvard Observatory stands. I also have a 'link' to Singer because I've done work for his publisher ICF Books and because he attended a multi-disciplinary science conference (ICUS) my church sponsored. Let's see, I also like Arthur Robinson.

I'd like to think that my awareness of my position and "biases", combined with my free disclosure of them, will tend to immunize me from unconscious POV pushing. All I'm trying to do is bring articles into balance; not "slant them" so that they endorse anything I believe in. I try very hard to be above all that. --Uncle Ed 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A possible example to consider- both AIDS and HIV say that HIV is what causes AIDS. There has been (and possibly still is) some dissent on that issue. Should we describe "HIV causes AIDS" as a POV of certain people, or as a fact? If only things about which there is no dissent are facts, then we have no facts at all. I suppose one could argue that wikipedia should never present anything as a fact, but I think this is taking things to unneccessary extremes. Friday (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here you bring up a very good question, with a sparkling clear example. I actually do part-time work for a man who dissents from the "HIV causes AIDS" POV. I suppose the percentage of dissenters is a tad higher than that of flat earth believers.

What should we do, take a poll of doctors? Or AIDS researchers? Say that "most researchers in the field believe"?

If it were up to me, I would set the threshold at 95%. Anything below that would be "controversial" and we would merely say that the majority of researchers in the field say X. Between 95% and 99% I would say "the overwhelming majority" say X. But who sets the threshold, and what if there's a dispute over the percentages?

I'll go with community standards on what percentages indicate what level of consensus. If 67% to 75% of scientists think it's a certain way, though, I think we should say something like:

• two thirds of scientists polled think it's X
• three out of four scientis attribute it to X

Is there a policy page or guideline on this percentage thing? I mean AIDS reappaisal is certainly a minority view, but we have a 3,500 word article on it. --Uncle Ed 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Johnny Lee Clary - Please help

Hey there, my name is Nick, my username is Potters house and I have encountered a problem with trying to provide any information about Johnny Lee Clary. I have posted this post off to other staff members also. I am not sure if this is the best route to resolve this, but can think of no other way.

The article Johnny Lee Clary has been deleted. I have known Johnny through telephone conversations and email for a short time now (about 3-4 months). He recently came and shared his life story in for our church group for the first time just two weeks ago. Before I met Johnny I became interested in his story i.e. his conversion from the head of the KKK in the US, to being a Christian Minister who now teaches against race hate groups. I found the article Johnny Lee Clary as it still is today, deleted, except for some small talk. If you read the talk you see what I have said at the time (notice I have gotten no reply, probable my fault as I don’t know heaps about WIKI policy). From my understanding Johnny Lee Clary was posting as The KingOfDixie and looks like he tried to change a few things on Wiki concerning the KKK. While this is a controversial subject, Johnny being the former leader of the KKK would probably know a thing or two and be able to contibute, but that’s another story. He eventually made an article about himself i.e. Johnny Lee Clary. Johnny being quite new to Wiki and ignorant of rules of conduct found himself at odds with some admins and had his site deleted.

Whilst observing Johnny over the last 3-4 months I have noticed that he is very outspoken against race hate groups such as the Neo Nazis, Skinheads, KKK etc. This, more often than not, lands Johnny in the hot seat. He has experienced persecution from racist groups for his departure from the KKK and voiced opinions against these racist organizations on his webpage, www.xkkk.org. Johnny has also received multiple death threats.

Because of his bold stance against these racist groups Johnny has become accustomed to hatred directed at him by those same groups. Johnny concluded that perhaps the guy who deleted the page Johnny Lee Clary was a white supremist. I am hoping to clear this up. Before he told me this, I started to create J L Clary, after hearing nothing from posting in user talk on Johnny Lee Clary's article. I wasn't 10 minutes into the J L Clary article when it was issued a deletion notice, and then before I had time to reply (about 5 minutes) it was deleted! I was amazed. I told this to Johnny and he said the main reason he was told that he couldn't have an article was because he was not prominent enough.

Johnny has a very famous testimony and has been on multiple TV shows like Oprah, Donahue, Jerry Springer, etc, and even recently when he preached in our town he made front page news, a double spread on his life, and the local ABC interviewed him live, which is not bad for our town (LISMORE NSW Australia) See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history .

When David Wilkerson came to our town hardly anyone knew or cared, yet David Wilkerson is allowed an article (and rightfully so), but more people know of Johnny. As to whether he is famous or not, just Google search him and see all the TV interviews and radio interviews he does. He hangs with some of the most prominent Christian leaders in Australia. Besides this, just being the former KKK leader should be enough for an article (he doesn't even get a mention in the KKK one, and would be deleted). He was also a Pro Wrestler. So he is prominent in Christian circles, he is prominent amongst race hate groups, and he is also prominent in the WWE wrestling.

Johnny asked me to test the waters for him to see if he was being persecuted by someone from a race hate group. So I created some sites, John Clary Wade Watts and Operation Colorblind - the name of Johnny's Ministry. These have been fine until yesterday. I cannot understand why these sites are just issued a deletion notice? Just because they mention JLC? I was hoping to discuss these things but they are just deleted. The one on Wade Watts is about a black gospel preacher who was one of the leaders in the civil rights movement in the US and was good friends with Martin Luther King. He took Johnny Clary under his wing and even ordained Johnny as a minister (to this day Johnny is the only white man ordained in the All Black Baptist Church). But his article is up for deletion because I mentioned Clary and had a link.

That is why I am writing to you to see if you can help. It seems to me that the person(s) deleting all articles which even mention Johnny Lee Clary has an agenda. I thought that wikipedia admins had to keep a neutral stance on every article. It seems like this guy has a vendetta against JLC. Why delete the Wade Watts article. That is guilt by association and could be proof that all deletions are because of racial discrimination! I hope this is not the case and would think that it is politically motivated, as Johnny is a strong supporter of George Bush and Antaeus Feldspar of Kerry.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush.

My hope is that Johnny will be able to have an article like any other famous person, minister, former KKK leader, or pro wrestler, and that Johnny and anyone connected with him and his ministry will in future have certain rules set in place that do not allow the wholesale deletion of the articles associated with him, but that they will be at least discussed.

I thank you for reading this long winded post. I have only been using WIKI for about a year myself so I need your help, I don't really know what else to do. I hope you can help. I personally think that Johnny's story is one that is beneficial to the cause of reconciliation between races and to the3 unity of society as a whole. It would be a shame if WIKI became known for having covert racists. Of course I hope that this is a misunderstanding and that all will be cleared up soon.

Here are some links that might help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Watts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheKingOfDixie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Colorblind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Threeafterthree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Potters_house

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antaeus_Feldspar

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush. Perhaps the bias is political and not racial?

The link for page: John Clary has already been deleted!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alabamaboy

Please notice that his link was taken from the KKK site the same day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=prev&oldid=65690238

then

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=65690238

Also note his contributions: Featured articles: · African American literature -- My first featured article. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback. While I didn't start the article, I obsessed on it for an entire month and wrote most of the copy. · Ku Klux Klan -- I began work on this article after it became a featured article. Since then I've mediated several editorial disputes on the article (including one of which kept the article from being delisted as a FA) and made a large number of edits. Potters house 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

Hi there. I'm not sure why you consider me "staff" (I'm a former admin), but I'll try to help anyway.

Once an article is deleted, re-creating it under a different name will get you a quick re-delete. So that is not the route to go.

If John Clary was once a KKK leader, then you can put information about him into the Ku Klux Klan article. Just create a section on "leaders" or "history", if there isn't one already. Enter the info there.

By the way, what you call a "site" we call an "article". Yessir, Wikipedia is a web site with one million articles.

Meet me at talk:Ku Klux Klan, please. --Uncle Ed 13:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Principal Components Analysis article buggered

There are numerous red Failure to parse errors at the top of this article that quite confuse ignorati such as me (><statistician, ><Wikipedian, or almost so). Ed Poor seems to be the most-recent contributor, so you get if not the blame for the problem, at least my request that you look into rectifying it. Thanks. By the way, PCA is a key technique used in some of the more-scientific journal articles concerning global warming, hence my present interest. Joe 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll be right there, Joe. --Uncle Ed 13:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Been there, don't see any problem. Feel free to revert me, though, if you think that will rectify the formatting problem you're having. --Uncle Ed 13:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Civilian targets

Hi Ed,

I appreciate your point about "targeting." Controversy stems from Israeli targets in civilian areas. We can obviously write that it also stems from Hezbollah targets in civilian areas, though someone (maybe you?) expressed that Hezbollah targets civilians specifically. If you can verify that, then we can remove any moral equivalence issues. Let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tewfik. If anything I've written suggests that its my own point of view, please revert me at once! :-) I want a balanced, i.e., neutral article. But it's no secret that I'm pro-Israel; unconscious bias may creep into my writing at any time, I regret to say.

My impression is that Hezbollah sends unguided rockets into areas populated by civilians, in the hopes that they will kill civilians. But that Israel sends precision munitions against Hezbollah targets only.

Obviously the article would need sources for this, as well as any sources which oppose this. --Uncle Ed 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

From Time Immemorial

I don't understand why you removed the subtitle of the book. It was factual and informative. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Restored. Thanks for the suggestion! :-) --Uncle Ed 00:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

See my comment

in Talk:Extrajudicial_prisoners_of_the_United_States Too Old 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Come to Wikimania!!!!

Dear Ed,

I note that you're not in the wikimania database... with much regret. What's going on with your own encyclopedia project? Can you come and give a lightning presentation on the subject? What are you doing this coming week? I look forward to seeing you, now or in the future, and remain

Yours, Sj

Totalitarianism

Hello Ed! See my answer on Talk:Totalitarianism. Thanks! Lapaz 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Regardless of how this turns out, I do appreciate your courtesy and prompt answers. :-) --Uncle Ed 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• 172 is up to old tricks. If you are so inclined, please assist in maintaining the article in line with consensus and dealing with his arbitrary reversions (Lapaz also asked this). Obey 14:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• I have removed the sentence "In the West, the two chief types of regime which fit this definition are fascist and totalitarian" so that the focus can be on the demise (hopefully) of 172's "typology", but will leave alone if you wish to see it back in there. Obey 10:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many forks

I think you're sometimes making forks where none are required, lately. Examples include Good scientific practice and Wikipedia:Marginalizing minority points of view. As always, extreme caution is required to keep people from seeing these as forks to specifically advocate a point of view. I know, there's an important difference between describing and advocating a POV, but often the best way to deal with this is to describe the different relevant points of view in the main article. Sometimes the sidebar articles seem to want to have a sympathetic point of view to what they're covering. Friday (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you regard these as 'forks', I'm inclined to go along with you. There's a fine line between description and advocacy, and the contributor often is the last to notice when he crosses it.

I have no conscious motive to exalt any particular POV over another at Wikipedia. My aim is simply to provide a balance, especially when an article already is biased in favor of POV #1. I frequently add something about POV #2. --Uncle Ed 18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I could easily be wrong about them. But, surely making a new article that gets quickly deleted doesn't accomplish much in the long run. I dunno, I just wanted to urge you to tread carefully in this regard. Friday (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It might be too much of an 'uphill battle' for me, to insist on adherence to NPOV. I'm reviewing the attacks on Bjorn Lomborg now, and the way Connolley and especially FM talk to me (or about me) mirror those attacks to an astonishing degree. It could be that anonymous online collaboration has its limits. --Uncle Ed 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I agree with user:Friday about your behavior. Making many new articles about subjects that have already been covered does not help Wikipedia. Your behavior may have been fine in the earlier stages of Wikipedia when many new subjects were to be covered, but I think it no longer is. Additionally, as Friday already pointed out, creating new articles on contentious subjects may be seen by other contributors as creating a Wikipedia:POV forks to push your POV, though these contributors are probably unaware that you also do this on non-contentious subjects. Andries 13:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries, I see what you mean now. I will be careful about creating new articles. In fact, what I'll probably do is propose a new article first, and see if anyone agrees. If no one else is interested, then it's probably material that should go in a section of an existing article.

In the old days - which as you pointed out are long gone - it was not seen as a problem. Many small articles would be created first, and then combined into one. But now I guess the trend is different.

Thanks for tipping me off, and please notify me quickly if I make a similar mistake. I trust and value your advice! :-) --Uncle Ed 01:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this in reference to something recent? Friday's comment dates back to August of last year. --Uncle Ed 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a recent content/POV fork that you created was scientific study of religion. Of course this one article is not a problem, but it is symptomatic of a bad habit, I think. I see some more of a problem in the many small articles that you created on e.g. Unification Church Theology. May be they could all be merged/re-directed in Glossary of Unification Church theology. What do yo think? I hope that you do not expect other editors to clean up after you, but that you feel responsible for your edits. Other editors see a a huge problem in your many forks on Intelligent Design etc. Andries 20:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, the problem here is not that "the way Connolley and especially FM talk to me (or about me)", it's that you've restarted disrupting articles like intelligent design for the last two days, having been reverted by at least 4 different editors from both sides of the fence:[5] And now I see others are objecting to you creating POV forks. These are unfortunately the very issues that you are on probation for: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Findings_of_fact Adding to the disruption you are now lashing out at others like here [6] and the comment this is in reply to. None of this is acceptable, and there's a limit to how much disruption the community must tolerate, and that threshold is very low indeed for editors on probation. I'd rather you moderate your own behavior and not force us to take this up at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lomborg's page

Hi Ed. I don't know you. I'm sure you're a nice guy. You've obviously got hundreds of times the time and experience on Wik than I have. I respectfully disagree with the row you started over on Lomborg's page.

I have spent several weeks trying to talk, primarily with William Connelly, about the wording in Lomborg's introductory paragraph. Not the whole article—I actually think that the thing was already relatively balanced and gave a good fair hearing to anyone wanting to read the whole thing. But when I started with it, maybe a month ago, I really thought that the intro was deceptive, and that it made it seem that Lomborg was generally held to be guilty of something. So I tried some wording, and William shot it down, and kept coming back with the fact that he (Lomborg) was "guilty", because of the original conclusion of one agency. Nevermind, it's all on the discussion page. Anyway, I felt that the wording I finally came up with was yes, a bit of a nod to the anti-Lomborgites, but that it really gave him his due. (See particulary the discussion about whether or not he was "cleared".)

I feel that it was fair the way I had it, and that you opened up a can of worms by wiping out the balance, which precipitated William's absolutely absurd edit (really a restoration) which just leaves it at "he was accused of scientific dishonesty".

I know I am overreacting. After all, don't submit it if you don't want it to be edited mercilessly. And William finally left it alone, and I was happy, but now it's all shot to hell. Yes, I'm overreacting. But I'm going to post this anyway, just so you know.

I guess what I'm saying is, hell, I don't know what I'm saying. I'm just bummed. Unschool 03:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you posed an excellent question: "How about staying neutral, and just reporting Who said What? (Rather than trying to guess what they were thinking, or speculating on the implications.)" Allow me to answer that. The theory behind Wik is that it needs to be NPOV. That's one of the things I love about it. But that does not mean "just the facts, ma'am". It can't. If every article like this consisted solely of who said what, the articles wouldn't be articles, they'd be reproductions of original research. (Isn't that Wikisource?) What I'm saying is, that every article is inherently summaristic (yes, I think I just coined a word). It's for that very reason that we must strive for NPOV. There wouldn't be arguments about POV if we were just going to write the facts, pure and dry. There also wouldn't be any readers of Wik. That's just not how an encyclopedia reads. This is especially true in the introductory paragraph, where, by definition we cannot include all of the facts--that's what the body of the article attempts to do. An intro is a summary, and there, more than anywhere else, we are likely to have conflicts about POV. And the intro is critical, because it sets the tone for the article, and even because it can create a predisposition within the reader. That's why William's edit of choice: "He is most known for his best-selling controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist. In the wake of the book's publication, Lomborg was confronted with allegations of scientific dishonesty from members of the Danish scientific community." He just leaves it at that, leaving the uninitiated reader into thinking that the charges against Lomborg still stand—which the article makes clear do not." Is what William wrote true, factually, verifiably true? Absolutely yes. It is the facts. But it is not NPOV, because it decieves the uninformed reader. So what I'm saying is, taking the approach that we should just report what was said, without trying to interpret what was meant or intended, is not going to work, because a) it isn't practical--there just isn't room to include all the various thoughts, and b) it isn't a guarantee that you will achieve NPOV. Being editors means making decisions—fair decisions—about what to conclude and what not to include. That's my take, anyway. Unschool 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate all your remarks. I agree that the intro is critical, in particular. Sometimes that's a good place to say that "there is a dispute" over some controversial aspect of the subject. Lomborg isn't famous because of his book, really. He'd have been ignored if his book had been ignored. He came to fame when Scientific American ran a lengthy editorial on his book, thus bringing him into the international spotlight. Whether their critique of his book was "scientific" or "political" is a tough question. Lomborg supporters urge the latter. All of this is in the context of a political environment where the champions of unpopular, anti-mainstream views are discredited so that people will avoid examining what they say and what their reasoning is. (You might also be interested in Sam's comments below about 'reason' vs. 'authority'). Cheers! --Uncle Ed 14:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on 'Factual dispute'

Hi. I accidentally came across your (presumably draft) 'Factual dispute' subpage. A comment, for what it's worth: you say 'In religion, when a dispute over doctrine or dogma arises, it generally cannot be settled because there is no basis other than ecclesiastical authority to determine what is true.' That's a pretty startling claim. Theologians like Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine certainly thought that they were using reason (as well as textual interpretation) to try to solve disputes over the meaning of scripture and the demands of faith. Showing that they were mistaken about this will be hard (and will probably constitute original research). Incidentally, I say this as an atheist philosopher, not as a religious person. Cheers, and sorry for barging in uninvited, --Sam Clark 13:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your very perceptive comments, and welcome!

They certainly did think they were using reason. My own church also insists that its position is reasonable.

What I should have said was that, in the arena of public debate, there seems to be no basis which all parties would accept. This, of course, leads into the Wikipedia idea of Neutral point of view for encyclopedia articles on unsettled issues.

I am trying to develop both a philosophy and method for handling disputes over 'what is true'. I'd like to see harmony between people who believe differently, i.e., who support or promote differents points of view.

I say this as a religious believer and church member, though not (I hope) an overbearingly dogmatic one. :-) --Uncle Ed 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hudud/Hudood

Good luck with maintaining that edit! Richardjames444 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added some quotes and links to Hudood Ordinance and Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan. --Uncle Ed 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Duh, oops

ROFL; User:FeloniousMonk reported by User:User:Ed Poor (Result: Only three reverts)

I really like FM and respect his dedication and hard work. I'd hate to see him accidentally go "over quota". He's usually very careful about that. --Uncle Ed 15:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Prejudice"

I realize that you side with the pov of the abusive user who was blocked for 3RR, but I urge you to aim for more even-handed advise in future. El_C 14:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I'd like to give better advice. Please tell me what would be more even-handed than what I said.

I agree that Wikipedia:POV pushing is bad for Wikipedia. So my sympathy for anyone trying to describe a POV is limited to their attempts to do so neutrally; i.e., fairly, properly sourced, and without undue weight. --Uncle Ed 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who El_C is, except that he has a picture of the Communist Che Guevara on his Wiki web page. He did not participate in the discussion about the changes. Others made dozens of changes, and they are not blocked. I can only assume that he is making some sort of Communist statement by blocking me. Roger 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC) I would suggest pointing out to the user that an uninvolved admin is actually good, and that good faith is good, and red-baiting is bad. And generally avoiding the word "prejudice." El_C 15:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Ed will be happy to point that out to his new-found bosom-buddy, but I sincerely doubt that the point, as valid and well put as it is, will be grasped. •Jim62sch• 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- are you at Wikimania?

Dear Ed -- I just wanted to see if you've come up for Wikimania -- I attended yesterday and will be back tomorrow (Sunday) morning.... It would be great to see you!

Peace, BCorr|Брайен 15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• *sniff* That's too bad. But I hope all is well! Are you full-time at the project? BCorr|Брайен 15:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm an admin and bureaucrat and the chief Technology Consultant. If they could afford me, I'd quit my day job and work there full time. I helped them build the wiki and assisted with SQL queries of the database, setting up templates, coordinating MediaWiki software updates, writing Javascript shortcuts, user training, etc.

By the way, we figured out how to make an article start with a lowercase letter. Our article on e (mathematical constant) won't have that annoying "technical limitation".

We have over 1,000 FAs already. Man, I can't wait until the whole thing is released. It will be enormously beneficial for Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's great Ed -- I'm glad that this is taking place and that you've helped shepherd it through.

BTW, at this very moment Mitch Kapor has a slide of your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_Kapor&diff=67257770&oldid=65207044 on the screen in his talk....

Peace, BCorr|Брайен 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What do these radicals want?

This isn't the article mainspace but it's not an excuse to use loaded terms to qualify the article subject. Why are you being inflammatory? Jean-Philippe 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for using loaded terms. I had no idea that calling an idea, person or organization "Radical" would be inflammatory.

I grew up in the 1960s, when every Boston intellectual worth his salt called himself a radical. It's a tradition that harks back to blokes like John Hancock, our most famous radical, patriot and traitor to the British crown.

Forgive me? --Uncle Ed 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You said you "apologize", yet you leave the inflammatory material in? Is that some sort of joke, or an attempt at being ironic? Jean-Philippe 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to comment?

There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 17:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your changes look good, I hope Tewfik will let them stay. Thank you for your work on the article :) RandomGalen 20:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

page move stuff

Ed, what's with all the page move business? How about some discussion or should we start calling you the new page move vandal of 10 Aug. ?? Vsmith 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And trying to revive a fork from Nov 2994? Vsmith 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a better, more neutral title. The POV that the mainstream view is a "consensus view" is disputed. However, no one disputes that anthropogenic GW is a mainstream view.

Are you confused over the difference between "what me and my buddies all think" and "how Wikipedia should characterize the dispute"? --Uncle Ed 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not confused about that - was only slightly confused :-) about the moves bit - I see there was only one plus a number of redirect changes that seemed rather odd. And reviving a two year old failed fork or whatever it was seems quite problematic. "how Wikipedia should characterize the dispute" .. or .. "How Ed wants to characterize the perceived dispute"? Cheers, Vsmith 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may jump in ... Let me be a little more specific, Ed. These changes from you ...

18:51, 10 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Prevailing political position on climate change (#REDIRECT Mainstream :opinion on climate change)

18:51, 10 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Global Warming Survey (#REDIRECT Global warming survey) (top)

18:50, 10 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Global warming consensus (#REDIRECT Mainstream opinion on climate change)

18:49, 10 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Scientific consensus on climate change (#REDIRECT Mainstream opinion on climate change) (top)

18:48, 10 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Scientific consensus on global warming (reviving old page that had been reduced to a redirect without adequate merge) (top)

18:47, 10 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Global warming survey (reviving old page that had been reduced to a redirect without adequate merge)

18:46, 10 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Scientific opinion of global warming (#REDIRECT Mainstream opinion on climate change) (top)

18:46, 10 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change (moved Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change to Talk:Mainstream opinion on climate change: If it were "scientific", it wouldn't be "opinion")

18:46, 10 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Scientific opinion on climate change (moved Scientific opinion on climate change to Mainstream opinion on climate change: If it were "scientific", it wouldn't be "opinion")

... look painfully similar to the three-card-monte, where-the-heck-did-the-article go game you played when you moved around the article on Qur'an descration at Guantanamo with similar enthusiam and creativity a year or so ago. At that time, you and I went into therapy together to discuss this kind of thing, and I thought we had reached some conclusions. What, if I may ask, happened to the kindler, gentler Ed?  ;) (P.S.: I'm putting this message on my talk page, too, just in case the surface heat of the earth evaporates it here.) BYT 21:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As of this moment, all the titles above which I've wikified have been redirected (by some other contributor) to Scientific opinion on climate change. So I'm not the only one who likes neutral titles around here. :-)

It may be time for an RfArb

I think that your actions on "science controversy" related articles qualify you for an RfArb. We will probably proceed with one in the next few weeks. --ScienceApologist 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but remember that it's not a case of "me defendant, you all prosecutors". Everyone who enters arbitration will come under scrutiny.

Your clique (not so much you, but FM and the others) have consistently violated rules of this web site. Reverts for no reason (other than the clique decided not to let anyone edit "their" articles. Reversion of well-referenced information on no other grounds than "it pushes a POV".

FM told me to read the new policy pages (new to me since last year), and I did. So should you. How else could you miss things like NPOV contemplates including all points of view?

Deleting other people's work on the grounds that it expresses a point of view contrary to the prevailing (mainstream) views? Unless I've badly misunderstood their past decisions this isn't going to be pleasant for anyone.

Better if we all simply agree to let the controversial articles express Both Sides (not just the Liberal POV). Well, have it your way. I guess I owe you one for what I did to you last year; even though you were kind enough to accept my much belated apology. Cheers. --Uncle Ed 01:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You should think carefully about what you are claiming. The accusations of WP:CABAL and violations of WP:NPOV should be backed up with evidence. Currently, there is a growing list of evidence that shows you are actively disrupting a wide-range of articles with an expressed agenda to express "Both Sides" which is really code for promote your own viewpoint of what a netural point of view is. Part of consensus is recognizing that one's perspective necessarily clouds one's view of what is neutral. You have indicated above that your version is correct and that there is a "liberal POV" in science-controversy articles, a perspective that does not give you much in the way of legitimacy in your insistence that all you are doing is trying to make articles "neutral". --ScienceApologist 14:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Last time I emailed Jimbo to check my 'private interpretation of both sides', he agreed with it. If your clique is so wedded to liberal POV that they don't recognize it as being a "side", then that's the problem.

Try reading source material which disagrees with your own beliefs/views. That will help you to to see that in the controversial science articles, there really are two verifiably opposed sides. Really, the only question is how much space to give the minority POV - not whether that POV has been published anywhere.

BTW, I first noticed liberal POV in Scientific American in 1968 (when I was 9 years old :-) in an article about the arms race. Scientists are also political beings (or at least that's the Conservative POV!).

If you consider describing "Both Sides" to be disruption, and if you can get the arbcom to agree with you, then I'll have to change my editorial strategy radically. --Uncle Ed 14:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're still at it. You've put blinders on and think that you are the sole-arbiter of what "balance" is here at Wikipedia. This is an unfortunate state of affairs because when you aren't editting "science controversy" articles, you are a pretty good editor. No one at Wikipedia takes issue with describing "both sides", what numerous editors take issue with is your tacit assumption that you and you alone of Wikipedia editors are the one who truly understands "both sides". You haven't taken the time to do consistent research, cite your sources, or practice consensus editting on the articles you routinely disrupt. While railing about "balance" you have completely missed the disruptive nature of your actions. Neither concilliatory, nor willing to look at your own bias in respect to how you edit articles you end up acting like a blind man throwing daggers at your oppononents. How many of your edits to "science controversy" articles have you made that haven't been reverted in recent months? I get the impression that you lack the ability to evaluate your own contributions with respect to content. Most of your edits aren't about adding verifiable information to these articles but rather are about promoting a style and type of prose that makes you feel comfortable. Look at the evidence collecting at your RfC. It represents some very tendentious and confrontational activism that is better suited for other parts of the internet. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here and the way to describe things with "balance" of "both sides" is to carefully cite the notable opinions and ideas that are worthy of inclusion in the appropriate articles. It's not by moving pages, writing irrelevant caveats, or inserting weasel wording into articles. --ScienceApologist 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

These are all good criticism, Joshua, and I appreciate your taking the time to go into detail. I agree that I'm not the sole arbiter of balance. I should be more patient about negotiating how much space opposing views are given.

My idea of "research" is a quick google search, followed by a copy and paste. Perhaps I am too hasty in some cases. I have learned from FeloniousMonk how to use the new <ref> tag.

Would you like me to focus more on adding verifiable information to articles? --Uncle Ed 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

Ed, are you deliberately misreading SA's post? He clearly stated that it is your wholesale rewrites to bias articles strongly to promote one viewpoint, you are calling this "expressing Both Sides". How can you possibly accuse him of stating that he is saying that describing "Both Sides" is disruption? It is your mislabeling, not his assertion. And as long as I am here, please start posting on the talk page and attempting to gain consensus for changes instead of doing these wholesale rewrites. And stop with the Liberal POV Bias accusations, these attacks are beneath you. If SA or I or you or anyone else is liberal, radical, conservative, whatever it is completely irrelevant - only the bias of edits matters. Please note that your edits are being questioned, and you are responding with accusations of personal bias. Address the edits not the editor, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, did he mention wholesale rewrites to bias articles strongly to promote one viewpoint? I must have overlooked that.

I am completely against submitting any edit that changes a controversial article so that (instead of describing both sides of the dispute) it strongly promotes one of them. Is that what you and SA are talking about?

Or is there another way to read the following?

• disrupting a wide-range of articles with an expressed agenda to express "Both Sides" which is really code for promote your own viewpoint of what a netural point of view is

My viewpoint of what a neutral point of view is, as confirmed by Jimbo numerous times, is that the articles should "describe each side fairly" using the format X said Y about Z. If this is different from your viewpoint of NPOV, please explain further. Perhaps I'm wrong. --Uncle Ed 15:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Did he mention... Not in so many words, no. The phrasing was mine.
2. Glad to hear it. It is what I am talking about, with due regard to Undue weight.
3. Is there a reason you keep mentioning Jimbo rather than referring to the policy?
4. I am female. Please cease using edit summaries which refer to me in the male gender, such as these [7] [8]. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry about all those "boy" and "dog" jibes; I won't repeat them!

I refer to Jimbo as the author and chief exponent of the "non-negotiable" NPOV policy, because he repeatedly agrees with my interpretation. And because a clique of POV pushers (1) disagrees with what Jimbo and I believe while (2) accusing me of being the one who is out of step.

If 85% to 95% of contributors believe ID is stupid and dishonest, that's okay. I can still work with them to create a neutral article. I just need them to be aware of the distinction between "here's where ID is wrong" and "here is where Author X states that ID is wrong". --Uncle Ed 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If 85% to 95% of contributors believe ID is stupid and dishonest, that's more or less irrelevant. It is how the article is written that matters, on this I believe we agree. It is your method of execution and judgment I disagree with, but this is not the venue for that - individual articles should be discussed on the article talk pages, which is something you are not doing. You are making very substantial edits with no or incredibly little discussion, no support for your edits (I would say proposed edits but since you haven't discussed them that would be inaccurate) and certainly no consensus that the changes are indicated or would improve the article(s) in any way.

Puppy jokes I have no problem with. Its the gender switch that bothers me. thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?

Oh, okay, then it's only the amount of discussion on the article talk pages that you're talking about? ;-)

I will start discussing more and reverting less, okay? --Uncle Ed 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, discussion is the key - not simply posting what you plan to do then doing it. That's not much different from what you're doing now. Try to clearly state what you think needs changing, and why, and if there are questions and objections be prepared to discuss other viewpoints on your proposed edits.

When I said dog jokes I didn't mind, I didn't realize you were going to go straight to that one... *sigh*. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Because one’s thinking is so embedded in a paradigm, it is difficult to step outside of it and grasp its out-lines." [9]

This is what I meant by your clique is so wedded to liberal POV that they don't recognize it as being a "side" (above). I'm not accusing SA of deliberate misbehavior. It's only deliberate if you know you're doing it. Aside from FeloniousMonk (and occasionally Dr. C.) there's no one I suspect of intentionally thwarting NPOV. If I did, they'd already have been RFC'd and RFarb'd.

Perhaps I overlook how easy it is for me to take a step back and say, "Now Ed, you realize that hardly anyone is going to agree with this, because very few people are away of X or Y." If it's a matter of statistics (like the "R squared" factor), I bet not 1 in 100 has even heard about it, let alone knows how it's calculated and interpreted.

And since my entire adult life has been spent in a church that most people label a "cult", I'm accustomed to starting each religious conversation with a conscious awareness of how "Rev. Moon is the Messiah" seems nuttier than fruitcake to 49,999 out of 50,000 people.

People in general do not question (or examine) their beliefs. They fail to heed the ancient Greek admonition, "The unexamined life is not worth living." In fact, there are oodles and oodles of people who are unaware of the simplest syllogisms of logic:

• If I believe that A implies B, but somehow it is proved to my satisfaction that B is not true; then I must start seriously questioning A.

One value of Wikipedia is that it confronts people with others who believe different things, people who can't be made to 'shut up and go away'. When there is a dispute, we can't win it by out-shouting our opposition. We must first of all recognize that we and they disagree about the facts. We say Hitler had millions of civilian noncombatants killed in WW2; the "denialists" say it was all made up by the Jew-lovin' West, from the photographs in Life magazine (staged) to the oral testimonies of 10,000 survivors (fabricated). But we don't shout them down, we just write Holocaust denial.

There are dozens of topics (and hundreds of articles) which are NPOV failures. In nearly every case, it's due to contributors, acting in good faith, but simply failing to grasp that their thinking is embedded in a paradigm. They're not being dishonest, and they're not misbehaving. They literally don't know what they're doing. --Uncle Ed 17:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, your opinion that the scientific mainstream is a liberal POV that is dogmatically adhering to a paradigmatic hegemony is not balanced nor is it neutral. Unfortunately, much of what you insert into so-called "science controversy" articles proceeds from this perspective. It is perfectly reasonable for you to write a well-researched (see below) contriubtions outlining notable and verifiable sources that claim science has such a problem (but Kuhn isn't a resource in this regard, let me warn you) in, say, science and politics. I'm not convinced that you really have understood the point that many of us are trying to make: while decrying a lack of balance on the part of other editors you insert statements that are more biased than the ones that make you uncomfortable.

By the way, Ed, as someone who has spent much time studying New Religious Movements, I understand your dog-backed-into-a-corner fight instinct with respect to your minority opinions on your religion. However, don't let this perspective become a source of pride where you believe your perspective is more enlightened than everyone else's. Otherwise, you're no better than the people that proudly declare the Unification Church to be a "cult" while engaging in their own cult-like behaviors.

--ScienceApologist 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for restating my opinion in your own words before rebutting it. That's a big help, because now I know what you think I'm saying.

I do not believe that the scientific mainstream is a liberal POV. In nearly all parts of all fields, science is a noble (or at least honest) enterprise. However, Kuhn has advanced the point of view that in, oh, half a dozen cases, a Paradigmatic way of thinking has blinded the mainstream to new ideas.

On issues touching on religion or politics, much publicity is given to statements by scientific organizations that support the Liberal POV. This does not mean that science itself is liberal. Disputes over whether science tends to be liberal might be interesting for us to cover, if we want to dig into this matter.

If I have inserted even one statement which is biased, please point it out. I've made over 30,000 edits, and I can't obviously stand by them all. But if in recent months or weeks I've done anything to an existing article (esp. on a controversial topic) which causes it to be biased in favor of a particular POV, I apologize and look forward to seeing my error so I can correct it. Or at least learn from it, if someone else has corrected it already.

I do not, actually, feel like a dog-backed-into-a-corner. A better metaphor might be "king in hiding" (like Strider), but since all who know me well regard me as being nowhere close to sainthood, it would be arrogance on my part if I indulged in such pride. I'm on my tenth reading of Lord of the Rings, because I admire the characters in it so much. I den't pretend to hold a candle to them.

The point about my "minority religion" perspective was, instead, intended to shed some light on why it's so easy for me to see outside of my own paradigm. I know that the rest of the world, to a great extent, (1) thinks human beings are only animals (no God-given soul); (2) believes the material world is all there is (no heaven or afterlife); (3) thinks there is no absolute basis of ethics or morality; (4) distrusts American free market economics; (5) exalts socialism and communism; etc. So when I encounter topics which relate to these perspectives, I can readily distinguish between "what I'm sure is right" and "what lots of other people believe". That's the point.

I wish other Wikipedians would likewise take the time to realize that "what they think they know" is only their point of view, as far as editing Wikipedia goes. Well, it's off for the weekend I go. Thanks for the exchange of views, and good luck preparing for the rfarb. --Uncle Ed 18:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You are misreading Kuhn. Kuhn simply states that scientific progress happens by way of punctuated equilibrium. He makes no value judgements regarding whether the mainstream is "blinded" to new ideas. He states, unequivocally, that the normal methods and practices of science are resistant to revolutions, but that such dramatic paradigm shifts are required as shown by the historical evidence. You have basically imposed your own opinions on this subject if you think that Kuhn was criticizing science for this.

Sometimes science supports some sides of a political debate, sometimes the other sides. Currently, the majority of issues where there is a scientific opinion seem to be in opposition to conservative ideology, but there are examples where liberal ideology is in opposition to science as well. Nuclear power is a relatively recent example.

Below, Cyde is beginning to expound on some places where you are inserting POV into articles. Your last edit to creationism was patently POV and you seem to think that it isn't. The belief that "science is incomplete" is a POV held by certain people, I'm assuming you are one of them.

Claiming that you have a blessed perspective that enables you to "see outside" the "paradigm" makes me scoff. That's like saying that you're the "best at being noncompetitive" --> it's paradoxical. No one has a perspective that is objective by definition. Claiming a right-of-neutrality for your perspective over others (perhaps implying those who take issue with your contributions to certain articles) is really arrogant.

We absolutely all have points of view and "what we think we know" is at the core of them, but there are ways to distinguish and evaluate whether a statement is verifiable or whether it isn't. Most of the contributions you make to creationism and intelligent design simply are not verifiable in the same sense that the articles currently are verifiable.

Just so you know, I'm not preparing for any RfArb, I'm merely putting you on notice that such action may be necessary in the not-so-distant future.

--ScienceApologist 19:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed's idea of research

My idea of "research" is a quick google search, followed by a copy and paste. Perhaps I am too hasty in some cases. I have learned from FeloniousMonk how to use the new <ref> tag.

Unfortunately, Ed, this kind of research is no longer de rigeur on Wikipedia. In the past, when the community simply wanted to increase the number of articles and wasn't too concerned about the initial quality, using the internet as a primary reference was fine. But the democratic sense of the internet and the lack of verifiable vetting of internet sources means that using the internet as a resource for high quality articles needs to be done much more carefully. Being a responsible editor means using responsible sources and the internet is not the best repository of these. Old fashioned libraries are a much better source for getting accurate information. Certainly using the internet is fine at first glance, but using the internet as a sole means of research just does not cut it anymore. --ScienceApologist 18:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and be sure to tell FM. He leans heavily in favor of web sites for ref's. I'll try to type in some stuff from books, if you all will trust me to be an Honest Typist. --Uncle Ed 18:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We will trust you to be an honest typist, but you need to also make an honest effort to read widely and get the best sources you can. There are plenty of poor sources in libraries as well. It's just that the resources required to publish something in hardcopy are greater than those required to publish something electronically, so you're less likely to find nonsense in a library than you are on-line. However, there are good on-line resources too. Wikipedia has developing guidelines on all of these. Please stop dragging FM's reputation through the dirt. Felonious is an excellent editor who uses mostly primary source internet documents when he edits. This is one of the best ways to use the internet that I know. --ScienceApologist 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

recent alterations to Intelligent Design

I'm just inquiring if you know that your change held some fairly strong POV. Were you aware that some of the changes introduced POV to the article? Mostly out of curiousity, i kan reed 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes (and he commits himself to the deadly scrutiny of the ArbCom thereby), I was aware of the fact that my changes introduced the POV of ID supporters about what ID supporters say they believe and want into the article about ID. Is there something unusual or inappropriate about this?

Do you think the article would be better if we removed all of that information, on the grounds that it is "information which advances a POV"?

If so, I wonder if you've ever read [[10]], which says,

• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view.

Now if what I wrote isn't well-referenced, we can all help each other by looking up the references.

Or is info about how ID proponents define ID "not germane" to an article about ID? --Uncle Ed 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I missed the part where you introduced the POV of ID supporters. The POV of ID supporters is fully stated in the article prior to your edits. Did you miss that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, heh. I didn't mean that I myself, for the first time in the article's long existence at Wikipedia, began explaining what ID supporters believe about ID. By "introduced" I simply meant "added", as in "introduced information into the article". What is this, a legal proceeding?

As for "fully stated ... prior", the section I was editing was Overview, which comes so early in the article that the points I added had not yet been made (above). If they are explained in greater detail (below), than my summary comes at exactly the right place.

The only possible objection I can see to my edits is that they tend to make ID "look better" than it did before I made the edits (advances the POV); that they "disrupt" the POV-pushing of those contributors who want to make ID look bad (POV pushing). Are you making either of these 2 objections? --Uncle Ed 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the objections to the changes you made were that you turned an objective, neutral overview using leading proponent's own words supported with 5 cites into an overview that relied upon a synthesis, your idea, of what proponents meant that was supported by a single cite. Tell us how that is not pov pushing but an improvement. FeloniousMonk 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall removing any leading proponent citations, but actually adding one. What are you talking about? --Uncle Ed 13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

To the point, the article is about Intelligent Design, not the individual beliefs of its supporters or creators. A section on the supporters of Intelligent Design comprising a significant percentage of the article would not be 'germane' as is the stated requirement above. Compare for instance how much of the electromagnetism article consists of discussions about those who support the theory of electromagnetism, rather than the substance of the theory itself. The Wiki ID article should be held to the same high standard, and nothing less. ID should stand or fall based upon its substance, not who supports it. Anything other than this strict standard is POV. Astrobayes 02:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, ID is nothing more or less than a BELIEF about how science should approach Evolution. We need an article on this belief, so we can understand the movement which promotes it (Intelligent Design movement) and the legal issues (e.g., Kansas school board case) involved. The motivation and tacties of ID supporters are germane - at least to the series (such as Wedge document), if not to specific articles (like Intelligent Designer).

Please stop turning a content dispute into a war over policy.

As the current RfArb will no doubt clarify, adding POV (i.e., points of view) about a controversial topic to an article about that topic is (A) not a violation of NPOV but actually (B) utterly in line with the spirit and intent of a "neutral article".

Objectivity, understood as the attempt to discover and label "what is true", is actually not a part of NPOV. If you want to write objective articles, try applying for the UPF Encyclopedia Project, which has a definite point of view. Here at Wikipedia, in case you didn't realize it, there is no particular point of view which is held on any topic. Not Adam Smith's Capitalism or Ayn Rand's Objectivism; nor Marx's Socialism nor Al Gore's take on Global Warming.

Wikipedia sits back and describes each POV fairly, without taking sides as to which POV is "the correct one".

I'm constantly amazed at how often other contributors lose sight of this policy.

Secondly, in a field like physics, which has no controversies of interest to laymen, established theories like electromagnetism don't have various points of view. In the History of physics, of course, we can describe old ideas which are no longer held. In fact, there are three paragraphs of info on the various beliefs and their supporters in Electromagnetism#Origins_of_electromagnetic_theory.

This is good, for confirmed science. What about protoscience or pseudoscience? Does Wikipedia have guidelines or policies telling our writers to omit mention of individual beliefs or proponents? I think readers are interested in who developed Chiropractic and the belief that subluxation is related to general health.

Also, in protoscience, the personality and character of proponents is important. Readers want to know whom they can trust or should be suspicious of, so they need to know who advocates what (and why).

If any of the foregoing contradicts policy, please show me where. I will abide by policy.

Finally, Astrobayes, your idea that "ID should stand or fall" disturbs me. It is not for Wikipedia to make a determination one way or another on Intelligent Design or any other theory (or belief or argument or "approach" to a topic). The article correctly reports that US scientific and legal institutions condemn ID as creationist pseudoscience. No one wants to change that.

As for FM's objection that I took out 5 references, I think he misread the diff. Nearly all the red on yellow text in the left column is repeated in black on green, in the right column. I took out only the Original research part, where the previous writers had concluded on their own that "Though intelligent design proponents say publicly the purpose of ID is search for design, they've stated a very different goal to their constituency". This accusation is a POV which requires a source, something which should be very easy to find at MediaMatters or NCSE. --Uncle Ed 13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. See "I agree with Larry" below. Thanks! :-) --Uncle Ed 13:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I agree that Wikipedia should only report on a subject as it is constructed, and not be party to its judgement. Science and historians will do those. And the phrase "stand or fall" is a common one within scientific discussions. Tenets of a host of scientific theories have stood or fallen based upon discoveries throughout history. For that matter, any idea "stands or falls" upon its own merit. Wikipedia only presents the state of a subject at any given time (or it should, rather). In a perfect world, there would be no debates on these pages, only a reporting of any available information about a subject. This doesn't seem to be the case however on topics where the testability of ideas are the subject - which makes my electromagnetism example appropriate. Indeed there are entire swaths of individuals (all of them laymen, quite contrary to your above comment) that are living today who have a problem with some aspects of electromagnetism; namely, that the speed of light is constant and that there is no 'plasma theory' description that describes the observable universe coherently. Having spent years teaching many science courses, doing public science outreach, and writing science articles, I can confidently say that there are few disciplines within science that do not have their centers of debate. Why do my comments therefore disturb you so? Astrobayes 23:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your POV ...

Why are you consistently inserting your religious POV into articles as if it was somehow a proven fact? Over the course of many months I've seen you pulling all sorts of shenanigans in relation to evolution, intelligent design, and other manufactured controversies. The entirety of science is not some vast conspiracy; if science is in agreement on an issue, that's the way it is ... none of this anti-scientific POV-pushing, please. --Cyde Weys 15:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can point to a few examples of what you mean, it would help me. I've asked FM, but he has refused.

What is my religious POV on evolution, ID or other controversies? And where have I inserted it? Please show me so I can revert it. I only want to add well-referenced info which is germane to the topic - not my own ideas. If I'm not quoting or summarizing someone else's (published!) POV, then at the offending passage should be text moved to the talk page, so that I can see what I'ved done wrong.

I don't learn well from sweeping generalizations. I need examples. --Uncle Ed 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's take it one edit at a time. How can you possibly justify this edit, where you added "bollocks" as a source? That meets the definition of vandalism, actually. Don't play around in article space please. --Cyde Weys 17:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

1. How is this an example of "inserting my religious POV"? You've responded to my request for an explanation by (a) not giving one and (b) asking me for one instead.
2. FeloniousMonk instantly recognized this as "merely one creationist viewpoint, the intelligent design creationism perspective". I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design, so this is hardly "my religious POV".

Is this unsourced edit what you are talking about when you complain of "consistently inserting your religious POV into articles as if it was somehow a proven fact?" If so, please explain why you regard it as my POV, when FM (hardly a meatpuppet of mine) clearly identified that POV's proponent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs)

Ohh, I'll get to your religious POV soon, but in the mean time, I was going through one edit at a time, I ran across the part where you inserted "Bollocks". I would still really like an explanation for that, by the way. Your attempts at evasion are noted, but I still want an answer. --Cyde Weys 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you add "Bollocks" under the references section? That could be considered vandalism. --Cyde Weys 18:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now. I thought that by "bollocks" you meant "no source". You meant the word bollocks literally!

I am not the author of that particular contribution. See this diff. When I undid the reversions of what I actually did write, I missed the fact that Ramdrake also took the time to erase what the anonymous graffiti article had added. See Line 216 of this other diff. --Uncle Ed 18:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

KKK

Hey there Ed Poor! I appreciate your help with the Wade Watts article. I have been working on the Johnny Clary article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary and have made Johnny Angel (wrestler) and drafted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house/Knights_of_the_Ku_Klux_Klan for the inclusion on the Ku Klux Klan page. title=User:Potters_house/Knights_of_the_Ku_Klux_Klan&action=edit Any imput would be appreciated.

Thanx for the help, as I am a bit of a block head ;) Potters house 07:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

PS Operation Colorblind was deleted again, I am not sure that I should have created it again, but am not sure how to get around it. I am not sure how to get the JLC site out of deletion either! Potters house 07:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help, John Clary sounds like an interesting person. However, the rule here is that, once an article has been deleted, you are NOT allowed to recreate it. You must first persuade the administrators that the topic is important, worthy of being included in an encyclopedia.

For Johnny Lee Clary, this means proving that he is a "notable person". Pending that, I suggest you continue developing the article in your user space at User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary. When it's ready for re-submission, I will help you with the "request for undeletion". --Uncle Ed 12:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool mate, thanks for the help! Potters house 13:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I put some more on the Clary article about his notability, but no ref at the moment. Potters house 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am pushing to get the article back up, I think that it is Ok, it could be cleaner, but with it back up other passers by will edit and clean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary Nick. Potters house 06:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfAr

I am filing a request for Arbitration about your editing style and related issues. JoshuaZ 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel - Lebanon discussion

You said:

Hi and welcome, but you don't have to shout. (this is your edit). If you know of a source which opposes media claims of 'most casualties are civilians', please supply it (calmly).

I have this article on my watchlist, and I check it several times a day. If it's becoming biased in favor of one side or another, just let me know and I'll try to fix it. :-) --Uncle Ed 20:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PatoDonald"

Well, it's not about "media claims". His affirmation is a pretty serious one, it needs some kind of source, even if it's just a neutral media "wrap-up" kind of article. The guy is talking about "Israeli apologists" and other kind of nonsense talk. I'm sorry, but my edit is pretty NPOV: until there is no official information available, the proportion is "unknown". In fact, Israel claims, officially, that almost 600 hezb fighters have died, from the ~1k initial estimative. And IDF is an official institution based on a democratic country. And that's being ignored. Why? NPOV.

He was asked to provide sources a lot of times. And just keeps ignoring it.

— PatoDonald 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the proportion of civilian casualties is one of the top issues in the controversy. Let's concentrate on finding out and reporting what all relevant sources say about this aspect.

It's important, also, because of the accusation that "Israel targets civilians"; meaning that they are deliberately trying to kill them. Israel's POV is the opposite: that Hezbollah is deliberately trying to kill civilians and that they use noncombatants as human shields.

I find all this so upsetting that at times I can barely type. Let's try to keep a cool head when describing this controversy. Have you read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot recently? --Uncle Ed 20:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, got it, sorry. =] — PatoDonald 21:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you

I disagree with you on a great great many things, but I think that reverting should be a last option for anything that isn't vandalism. In spite of what FM might think, it's acceptable to introduce POV to wikipedia articles, if it is not your intent to do so. People have been unfairly reverting you when they should be clean up the perceived POV and reach a new equilibrium. If you get a RfC on this subject, please leave a message on my talk page, as I'd like the chance to defend you from unfair accusations.

i kan reed 14:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There already was an RFC. It's advanced to a Request for Arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Ed_Poor. --Uncle Ed 14:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made the comment I intended to. I don't know if it will help your case or not. i kan reed 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub

I've created the stub: Animal rights and the Holocaust. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed

Great to see you back. I am also a UC member and I have been keeping an eye on UC related articles. Do you think we could get one of those cool box things with the UC symbol like other religions have? Steve Dufour 01:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I just did some work on the list of Unificationists page, adding the rest of the children. I guess more information on each could also be added. Thanks for your great work Ed. Steve Dufour 14:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Larry

We should not impose our values on other thinking people. You are all liberal-minded people, I trust--not liberal politically, necessarily, but liberal in the sense that you want to free minds. I enjoin you to think carefully about the best way to achieve this. By failing to take stands on controversial issues, we aren't demonstrating weakness--in fact, we are demonstrating the strength of our faith in the minds of our fellow human beings. We should let them arrive at their own conclusions. We should trust them to use their own minds--just as you want to be trusted. More benighted souls than our enlightened selves will appreciate our stance and be more apt to listen when we hand down the truth. (copied from Larry's Big Reply)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(Balling) Funding

I've put more on the talk page, but.... Is this really a good source? http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5 It's a known anti-corporate web site, not published work in any case. Not even that, there are no direct references there for either the Harpers info or for the details from Ozone Action. In addition, the reported info is one sided, and in no context. Even ignoring the fact that the information itself is a non-sequiter no matter where it's from, that seems a particularly poor reference. But again, does that random bit of info need to be thrown in at the end of the paragraph, even if it was sourced well? Sln3412 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to comment over at the Arbitration, since I get a little um wordy and uh spazzy, but fwiw, you added that back when I thought you'd do the exact opposite. If that doesn't tend to show an NPOV, I don't know what would. Now, if Stephan and others would just start editing rather than reverting over at the GW Controversy page. I keep trying to balance that out, and get nothing but pushback; why they want to keep a paragraph about funding that uses almost all websites, and all ones that are more kooky than any of the skeptics are supposed to be, I have no idea. And don't want links to the funding statements by organizations to show who funds them? If that's not POV pushing to the exclusion of more verfiable and reliable sources, I don't know what is. Sigh. Well, even though I don't really know you but from reading some GW discussion pages, good luck on it all. Sln3412 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with all that. I've been at Wikipedia nearly 5 years, and (*pats self on back modestly*) I regard myself as the foremost exponent of NPOV. Perhaps this is what makes me a target when I try to balance the Wikipedia:POV pushing of pro-GW theory contributors with the skepticism of published sources.

GW is directly related to the Kyoto Protocol and its emissions trading schemes, which will involve a hundred times as much money as the US is curretly spending on GW research. And all based on "science" which top Harvard and MIT academics disagree with.

The dispute is between a handful of scientists and other academics who say, "Wait - the results are far from clear" vs. people who say "There is a scientific consensus which is clear enough to take action now." All I want is for this encyclopedia to describe the dispute between the 'far from clear' minority and the 'clear enough' majority. --Uncle Ed 13:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: "I didn't know 'precocious' required a ref"

I understand your point, but if I may expound on this: "precocious" is an adjective meaning "exhibiting mature qualities at an unusually early age" and, while it's arguably factual for Fanning herself, I believe the character in the film was forced by circumstance rather than by innate ability to be unusally mature. Since it's not within the purview of an encyclopedia to make a judgment call, I think it's wisest to cite an expert opinion for anything less than an absolute foregone conclusion. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim ^1m 02:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic ideas and concepts

I agree with you as well. There needs to be a lot more islamic ideas and concepts put into Wikipedia. After all, without ideas and concepts islamic history loses it significance. Without ideas and concepts, life has no meaning. The message loses its purpose, until finally there is no Islam.

Most of the books on Islam are dull when contrasted with those written by its leaders. They provide concepts as original as the fabric of reality is to us - such a stark contrast to the cliches of our time. .--IHusain 18:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

THis is Karwynn

DOn't have time to login, will comment at your RFAR eventually, good luck.

Encyclopedia Project

Most of the articles in the link you added here are simply copies of Wikipedia content, and a lot of the others in that category aren't publically accessible at all. How exactly is this project notable? --Cyde Weys 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked the histories of the articles? They are not "simply copies", although each was originally copied from Wikipedia as permitted by the GFDL.

The 163 samples listed have been modified extensively and verified by professional editors. --Uncle Ed 18:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's permitted under the GFDL, I just question how this project is notable if all they're doing is taking a few hundred Wikipedia articles and editing them offsite. --Cyde Weys 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a "mirror or fork", and is no more or less notable than any other. --Uncle Ed 18:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It may not meet WP:WEB expectations, but I'd see little point trying to delete this article. The most result you'd get from it would be a suggestion to merge it into Unification Church or some related article. If it were a publication of some tiny little microfaith, that'd be another story, but as a project of a widely-covered religion, it doesn't seem inappropriate to me. Friday (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've met one or two people from this project. They're basically doing a kind of wikipedia 1.0 :-) Kim Bruning 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is a fact

Did you mean to start this article in a sandbox? From the first edit summary it seems that you did not mean to put it in main space. [11] Could you move it until you figure out where it going to permanently land? FloNight ^talk 00:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You are brilliant

I have placed myself on a self-imposed 40-day 1RR parole. I pledge not to do more than one revert per day on any Wikipedia article during the period from August 21st to October 1st, 2006.

Nice move! It shows class. It shows responsibility, and it demonstrates being as flexibile as truth is to what the opposition does. --Rednblu 03:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but why 40 days? 1RR is how we should all be editing, all the time! Surely you remember the harmonious editing club- says on the page you started it. Friday (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It takes time to change. I have fallen into bad habits (for which I blame no one but myself) which cannot be thrown out the window: they must be "coaxed down the stairs, one step at a time". --Uncle Ed 15:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Naturalism in biology

That was more of a question than a statement (ok, it was a question phrased as a statement). I was discussing what I see as the cornerstone of ID. I don't have a source to support that assertion, just an opinion. I don't know what the cornerstone of ID is...I think it's the idea naturalism idea, but I don't have a source to support the idea. My intended point (which, obviously, was badly made, since neither you nor Roland noticed it...hopefully I actually said it and didn't just think it as I wrote) is that whichever one it is, I think we need to source such a statement if we are to make it. Guettarda 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent design

I would ask that you explain this edit. What, might I ask, do you consider to be a personal attack in the post you removed? And please, stop making nonsensical edits, It serves no purpose. -- Ec5618 17:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call it a personal attack, and I agree that nonsensical edits serve no purpose.

Please avoid remarks that are more about the editor than about the article, like:

• pretend to have the moral highground.
• the one who began the name calling.

I would ask that you explain what if anything such remarks have to do with improving the Intelligent Design article. --Uncle Ed 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're lecturing? •Jim62sch• 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Despite your attempts to portray me in a negative light, I do quite a bit of good around here. Try to focus on making good articles, and drop the snide comments. --Uncle Ed 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite my attempts to what? The light cast upon you is your own -- you choose what form it takes. No one denies that you do some good, but the key issue is whether the good outweighs the bad, and in my opinion, it does not.

As for your advice, no article I've ever created has been the victim of vitriolic attacks from people hell-bent on inserting their POV. As for snide comments, I'm assuming you're just bummed that you can't use your puppy jokes on me. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Pluto

Ed, why are you mucking about with articles about Pluto? Given your comment left in several places re the "oblong" nature of the orbit, I'd have to say that you don't know squat about astronomy, and if that is the case, you really shouldn't be editing astronomy-related articles. BTW, the term used when describing Pluto's orbit should be "eccentricity" (there is a sizable diff in its aphelion and perihelion). Also, its inclination might be an issue as well as it is 17 degrees off the ecliptic. You might want to look up obliquity while you're at it. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Associated Press don't know much about astronomy, or how to describe the eccentricity of an orbit. Orbital paths are all elliptical, a fact that has been known since Kepler's day. But most orbits are as close to being a circle as the lines between points on a go board are to being squares.

You're right about their describing an ellipse as "oblong"; this makes about as much sense as calling the earth "pear shaped" when comparing it to a perfect sphere. (This shows that journalists aren't very good at explaining science to the public, which in turn shows why Wikipedia is so important.) Good catch. --Uncle Ed 11:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions on Cambodia etc?

Ooops, I'm a newbie; I forgot this: Pat Struthers 09:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I read your (recent?) comment on the 'Politics of Cambodia' article, and I'm not sure whether you recieved feedback or not... I am a buff of SE Asian history, of sorts, and I am not sure what your goals are but perhaps they dovetail to some extent with mine. I originally got interested in the history of Communism during a course in the Russian language at the University of Oregon in the late 80's; as my reading progressed I became interested in the way Marxist-Leninist-(etc.) 'democratic' governments were/were not successfully established. Being a rather chagrined 'patriotic' American I also became interested in the Vietnam conflict.

The result of all this is that I've read dozens of books on 'democratic republics', and I may be able to point you to some good resources; Wikipedia is a new resource for me (I like paper and libraries, geezer that I am), but from what I can see pretty accurate and objective.

WRG to communism in general, and particularly for American doings with Vietnam, Cambodia, and China, it is VERY important to read a LOT of books in order to get a balanced view; a few tell VERY little of the story. In regard to one of your questions, concerning the history of the CPP (Cambodia People's Party); read the article on History of Cambodia, 1979-Recent. Very good and will answer your questions exhaustively.

In brief, what happened was this: In 1975, at the end of the Vietnam war, there were (at least) two opposing 'communist' factions in Cambodia, in addition to the US-backed and independent ones: the 'Pol Pot' group and the Vietnamese-supported group. Pol Pot and his, well, goons, had successfully purged other faction leaders and were the only 'legitimate' nationalist/socialist faction, so they ended up in power almost by accident. The Vietnamese, initially at least, merely wanted to negate American infuluence in Cambodia and Laos, and thus their rather shaky original collusion with the Khmer Rouge.

This fell apart almost instantly, as the Vietnamese quickly withdrew all but a few border forces after 1975; they had their own problems consolidating the North and South, and they did not like the close association between the Khmer Rouge and China. Vietnam was Soviet-backed at this point in time, and also have a LONG history of conflict with China.

In 1979, after 4 years of genocide and extreme mismanagement, and after repeated incursions by the Khmer Rouge into Vietnam at the common border, Vietnam invaded and quickly knocked the Pol Pot regime out of power. They occupied Camobodia for the next ten years until the ongoing war with the Khmer Rouge remnants was finally settled by more-or-less free elections. The CPP is still the majority party in the country although a liberal democratic party has recently made considerable gains.

All in all, Cambodia is MUCH more 'democratic' than many socialist countries, for instance its neighbor Thailand; U.S. ally or not, the Thais have been governed by a succession of military regimes since the middle seventies and before.

Mail me, if this helps!

patstr@uci.net

- Pat

Animal Rights

Could you please look at Talk:Animal_rights#Unclear_paragraph and Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Holocaust_on_your_Plate_heading? Farnsworth J 03:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Silence of the Lists

Hello Ed, you might remember me from very early days... I've been trying to flag down someone, anyone to help me send a message to wikien-l. I've followed all instructions correctly (I think) and nothing of mine showed up. Then I sent email to wikien-l-owner@Wikipedia.org (I believe you're among those who receive messages to that addy) and received no reply.. I'm beginning to think something is wrong, perhaps debris left over from when an out-of-control administrator blocked me (he's now banned). Could he have left some "switches" set to keep me out of mailing lists and other stuff?... Anyway, any response would be refreshing. Maybe I could just send you the text of my question for wikien-l? Thx JDG 21:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Pd image}}

Ed, could you elaborate on your intentions for {{Pd image}}? I'm concerned that because it is named like an image copyright tag, a newbie who doesn't know any better may be inclined to use it instead of an actual tag. Also, it doesn't seem to save but a few keystrokes - typing {{Pd image|http://whatever}} isn't much faster than typing PD Source: http://whatever. Could you elaborate on the thought process behind it? BigDT 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The intention is, as you surmised, to save on a few keystrokes. If you have time, would you please help me design a more elaborate tag - or some other better system?

Ideally, the new (or experienced) user would simply fill in some required fields, and all boilerplate text would then appear automagically.

But if I'm interfering with an established process, let me know and I'll stop. --Uncle Ed 13:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Flame Off

No, Ed, no need to bother with Justin, I think it's just better to let Dunc and whoever handle it (and you're also right that I shouldn't have phrased my edit summary that way). I've just kind of hit my limit with wiki-silliness lately, which is why I haven't been editing much, or if I do it's less controversial stuff. (Maybe I'll finish up the British Poets Laureate articles I was doing). Sorry if I bit your head off a bit there on my page. •Jim62sch• 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Don't mention it. :-) --Uncle Ed 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My two cents While I disagree with some of your assessment, I appreciate a mild, rational response to an increasingly passionate and personal discussion taking place in a public forum. Even bearing in mind disagreement, I agree that I was certainly headed toward some undesirable comments, and I appreciate the role you played in de-escalation. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I aim to please. --Uncle Ed 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ed

I have another title for you to change. Please change Deir Yassin massacre to Deir Yassin incident. We are going to be consistent here on Wikipedia. If you refuse, it is your responsibility to revert 1929 Western Wall incident (to which I renamed it from 1929 Wailing Wall incident since I have never heard of any 'wailing wall') to 1929 Palestine riots. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am saying you are going to revert it back to 1929 Palestine riots. There is nothing wrong with the term 'massacre'. What happened in Deir Yassin was a massacre. What happened at Babi Yar was a massacre. Those are established historical facts which cannot be disputed. For you to turn the cold-blooded murder of scores of Jews by Arabs into an 'incident' is not acceptable. I cannot revert back to '1929 Palestine riots'. It is your job to make sure the page gets its own title back. Things like what you just did are not acceptable. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ed, why do you do this stuff?
• Still?
• Does the fact that people constantly show up on your talk page complaining about the way you've renamed pages not REGISTER with you as a problem?
• Did the resolution we reached over a year ago when you played this same game with the Quran desecration article mean absolutely NOTHING to you?
• Should I assume that the understanding we reached was undertaken in bad faith, in that you are apparently repeating the behavior all over Wikipedia?
• What is it going to take for you to stop renaming pages in open defiance of the principles of consensus and collaborative editing? BYT 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely failed to understand why you moved the article - without a shred of explanation! I won't revert you, but I will ask many others to look into your actions, and build consensus to revert. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to the article being moved back. Sorry for causing trouble here. --Uncle Ed 18:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Links

Hi Ed, I'm removing links because Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopedia, not a link farm. It either has to open itself up to being a link site, or be serious about being an encyclopedia. Articles within an encyclopedia should be self contained with only links to academic standard material or official resources. The randomness of links that currently exist damage the credibility of the site StopItTidyUp 20:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Any help?

Ed, any help per "The Silence of the Lists" topic above? I'm extremely ill and would appreciate it. JDG 21:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

re: "certain articles require their approval" [12]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

You might also want to review Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Best regards, •Jim62sch• 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

Almost two months ago I spent a few days polling recent editors of this artice regarding its pov tag. No-one voiced opposition to taking it down. You recently replaced the tag, and I just took it down again assuming that you missed the relevant section of the talk page. If you are attached to the idea of putting the tag back up, lets talk about it first at Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?. I'm sure neither of us consider this to be a major issue. Adelord 05:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I have removed the {pov-check} tag from the "Method" section. [13] --Uncle Ed 13:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientific method

I'll see what I can find...and while I'm at it, take a good look at what I wrote to make sure I didn't overstate things. Doubt I will get a chance before the weekend though. I really do hope for an outcome that's for the best for everyone...though, knowing the arbcomm, I fear it will be an outcome that simply says "we can't figure it out, so let's punish everyone". We shall see. Guettarda 21:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Johnny Angel (wrestler) redirect

Yeah, I think that's the way to handle it. It is conceivable to me that someone could come to search for the wrestler under his wrestling name. Dina 13:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could be a little more respectful

Saying "I can't believe kids waste their time with this..." is rather rude. Thanks for editing the typo, but I don't think that comment was needed. --Stormtrooper88888 16:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, you're right. Maybe I should take a wiki-break if my stress is leaking out this way. --Uncle Ed 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Wilson (theologian) deleted with no discussion

Andrew Wilson had a page on Wikipedia, undeniably deservedly so in my opinion, though the reason is because he was the editor of World Scripture, a major work (and the page didn't mention it; I hadn't gotten around to adding that). After searching for awhile for the page (those less familiar with Wikipedia do not have any easy way to find a deleted page - it doesn't show up on any Google searches; you pretty much have to know to check the deletion log specifically), I discovered that User:Improv deleted it with no discussion two days ago. I can't restore the page because non-admins are not allowed even to see deleted pages. He stated: "CSD A7: No assertion of notability" invoking speedy delete. The article did mention that Wilson is academic Dean of UTS, but he seemes to have interpreted that as no assertion; instead of a speedy delete, he might have given someone the opportunity to fix the page as I mentioned above, adding his obvious notability, which was unfortunately never done. Personally, I don't think Improv's handling of the situation was appropriate, but perhaps the problem is partly with Wikipedia policy on this kind of borderline case (by borderline, I mean whether an academic dean is possibly notable or obviously not notable). -Exucmember 16:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We may be seeing more and more of this kind of stuff in the future. Wikipedia is only a web site. It cannot create or destroy information. Once text is licensed by GFDL, it lives on forever.

I was advised yesterday by Prof. Mickler, a colleague of Dr. Wilson (in an interesting twist) to "start my own blog". I don't know if I'll do that, but the UPF Encyclopedia Project is taking the most important articles from Wikipedia and cleannig them up in preparation for formal publication in early 2008. If Wilson is notable, his bio will be there. --Uncle Ed 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, remember to AGF. Please read Talk:Andrew Wilson (theologian)#Undeletion. --maru (talk) contribs 19:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, are you saying that someone who is running for the Wikipedia Board of Trustees is excused for doing a speedy delete because he didn't take a few seconds to look back through the history to find the pre-vandalized article? ...which, btw, I misremembered, did cite Wilson's editorship of World Scripture, though it did not adequately describe its importance as a multiply reviewed major work in the field of comparitive religion. I assume good faith, but I think his action was sloppy work. If he is elected to the board, I hope he is more careful. -Exucmember 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being too harsh there. The vast majority of speedies are valid and correct speedies, and it was put up and tagged by good editors (so the blame inheres, if anywhere, there); short of examining some apparently innocous anon edits, there was no reason for Improv to suspect anything amiss. --maru (talk) contribs 19:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about the process. Obviously everyone involved should check for vandalism before nominating for deletion or deleting articles. I am responding here again because something weird has been happening since the article was restored and improved. Sometimes a link to Andrew Wilson (theologian) works (e.g., just now from the Andrew Wilson page) and sometimes a link to Andrew Wilson (theologian)‎ doesn't work (e.g., from User_talk:Steve_Dufour, or the same text cut and pasted into the search window). I've compared these side by side and see no difference in the text of the phrase between Andrew Wilson (theologian) and Andrew Wilson (theologian)‎, but for me, one works and one doesn't. In previewing this entry the latter one is redlinked both times, and sends me to the page that says "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." How can this be? Was the page not restored correctly? Even so, how can the exact same text lead to two different pages? It seems this could cause problems for some viewers. -Exucmember 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good thing you asked someone who "thinks" for himself (!) and enjoys solving puzzles. I pasted the broken link into a programmer's text editor, and an invisible character appeared.

The character appears between the ) and the ]] and I have no idea how it got there. I wrote a little computer program to read it, and apparently it is this Unicode character. --Uncle Ed 20:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought that might be it, but how could it have gotten there? I see that you corrected it on User_talk:Steve_Dufour; suggest you leave it as is on this page (so it makes sense). Could it be that way on any other pages? I must have copied and pasted from somewhere (onto User_talk:Steve_Dufour). Btw, do you like what I've done with Andrew Wilson (theologian)? Also, btw your link to his sermon is broken and I couldn't find a way to fix it. -Exucmember 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

DoD Directive 2310

Don't forget to add categories on DoD Directive 2310. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

switch

Hi Ed,

I was trying to compose a template for the Dutch wiktionary using the switch template. More specifically I was trying to make a template nomen actionis that will generate a flexible number of rows as given by the first parameter. It kind of works (see nl.wiktionary under 'draaien') Unfortunately it keeps giving me a couple of extra square brackets on the page and I do not know how to get rid of that. Any suggestions?

nl.wiktionary Gebruiker:Jcwf.

PROD warning

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Charlotte A. Cavatica, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Charlotte A. Cavatica. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Batmanand | Talk 17:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• This article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte A. Cavatica. You removed information about this from the main article, but it exists in the two film articles - does this imply that it is not part of the book? Your comments would be most appreciated. Thryduulf 08:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-Avars

Hi Ed, it seems there might be a conflict starting on this page, I wonder if you could freeze it for a little while until the possie involved address issues on the talk page. Many thanks. Budo 14:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how Ed could "freeze" anything, as he has no super powers of any kind, at least not anymore--152.163.101.9 17:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My idea of consensus

"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." It is is not voting by a power bloc, working for its own interests.

"At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and claim widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

If one group of Wikipedians wants to create a biased article, or one which almost completely omits one side of a controversy, then this is not "consensus" - it's abuse of process. NPOV should trump consensus. --Uncle Ed 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a two edged sword. The problem is, the usual way we arrive at NPOV is thru consensus. So, while it's true that any number of POV-pushers shouldn't be allowed to bias an article, saying "NPOV trumps consensus" is tricky. Sometimes, one editor can insist that their preferred version is more neutral, despite a consensus of other editors saying otherwise. Friday (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was easy. In fact, it wasn't even I who said it. Fred did. [14]

Also, we don't "arrive at NPOV" via consensus. We arrive at article stability that way. Dozens of articles have reached stability (or a hostile stalemate) without anything like what Jimbo called "a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal".

The pro-evolution, pro-environmentalist and anti-Bush slant of several article series is a violation of NPOV which I have been unable to overcome. The political power of writers who DO NOT WANT NEUTRALITY but rather want Wikipedia to reflect their own POV is simply overwhelming. And I'll be lucky if I escape an adverse RFArb vote because of this. --Uncle Ed 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed, what happens when the consensus asserts that their version is NPOV? How do you know which version is more reasonable if not through consensus? A single person asserting "my version is NPOV" in the face of many opinions to the contrary may simply be wrong. Dragons flight 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case we can't vote. We actually have to reason it out. For example, Morwen answered my question about WHY an deleted article was considered a "POV fork" by simply linking to a practically unanimous AFD vote - but none of the voters gave any reasons.

What we need is not voting and vote-counting - but actual reasoned arguemnts. Like, this article is biased because it favors POV #1 over POV #2. Not, this article is biased because 14 out of 15 people say so.

It's like science itself, a field I'm sure you're familar with. Lister's ideas about antiseptic surgery (based on experiments by Semmelweis and Pasteur) may have been unpopular and opposed by the mainstream. But the degree (or percentage) of that opposition had no bearing on whether Lister was getting good results.

People have to use their brains and their eyes. --Uncle Ed 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a rule in the WP:NPOV page something like the following? "Thou shalt not delete from any page a significant POV properly attributed to a reliable source--unless replaced with a better statement of that POV by another reliable source with proper attribution. --Rednblu 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that the comparison to science works very well. The scientific method involves the idea of being able to make measurable observations to support (or not) one's hypothesis. There's no "neutrality detector" we can point at an article that tells us how neutral it is- we rely on editor's opinions about what makes the article more or less neutral. Friday (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said! We are looking at a "logical design" of NPOV rules and considering what effect various rules might have on the turf battles over pages. It would seem to me that a pseudoscience view of "electrons" would not be a significant POV on "electrons." NPOV should apply only among significant views. Would anybody agree?  :)) --Rednblu 21:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, this is already widely understood, I think- "undue weight" should not be given to minority points of view. The devil is in the details tho, and we have no magical way of knowing what is or isn't "undue" weight- we have only the consensus of (hopefully!) sensible editors. Friday (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking. I bet all of us science geniuses and wannabes could come up with a quantitative and fairly neutral means of measuring Due weight if we wanted. Let's do some Gedanken experiments, shall we? --Rednblu 21:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Advice on "Reliable Sources"

I have had some slightly acerbic exchanges with user:smeelgova and user:Kat'n'Yarn over whether a book that they quote from extensively really does count as a valid secondary source. I would appreciate your opinion on a couple of (loosely related) points:

1. The (long out of print) book Outrageous Betrayal by Steven Pressman is written in a sensational and novelistic style, and is drawn from unattributable off-the-record conversations with a variety of individuals who clearly all bore grudges or antagonisms towards the book's subject Werner Erhard. There are no footnotes, references or bibiography; and although some interviewees are mentioned, there is no indication of the source for any specific episode described (which are often contested elsewhere, and sometimes potentially defamatory). Whenever I have taken that up with smeelgova, he has responded that the fact that it was a published book automatically qualifies it as a reliable secondary source. Is this really an accurate interpretation of the wikipedia WP:RS policy?
2. The book review of Outrageous Betrayal, also written by smeelgova, strikes me as excessively promotional. Is this within the bounds of legitimate usage?
3. The convention adopted frequently by him when drawing on that source is to blockquote a verbatim extract with a footnote reference at the end. This seems to me designed to leave a casual reader with the impression that the extract is an asserted fact within the article, rather than quotation of a (possibly contentious) third-party opinion. Is this an abuse of the convention, or is it ok?

Thanks DaveApter 14:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

References must be verifiable information from a reputable published source. That means that they must be identified well enough that a reader can potentially find them and locate the material in the reference which supports the information in the article. [15] I think the key is "verifiable", especially when there's a controversy. We're not in the business of settling disputes but "describing them fairly". That's what being neutral is all about. --Uncle Ed 17:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed - thanks for your suggestions and your interventions. As you probably noticed, smeelgova performed immediate wholesale reversions of your edits on both the Landmark Education and the Outrageous Betrayal pages (even if he did subsequently put one word back and post the conciliatory conversation below). I'm perfectly ok with having the controversies represented fairly. I don't see that that's what is happening at the moment. Anyway, thanks again for trying.

And sorry if I'm being dense, but does any book that gets published automatically qualify as a "reliable secondary source", or is there a further qualification that it must identify its own sources such that they are, at least in principle, checkable? DaveApter 15:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not "reliable" (as in we vouch for its truthfulness) but "verifiable" (as in, we let the readers know they can see for theirselves what that source says).

Recall that Wikipedia:NPOV policy is that we don't try to get to the bottom of controversies and say who is right or what really happened, as in the Koran abuse controvesy. The captives said the jailers flushed the holy book. The jailers said, no the captives did all the flushing. But Wikipedia doesn't say who "really" did the flushing. --Uncle Ed 15:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. DaveApter 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Be Nice As Well

Outrageous Betrayal

• I have noted your edits and restored the "muckraking", as well as shortened the title caption. As for the language used: Although the book is filled with atrocity tales, it fails to explain why many people found est's teachings appealing. That did seem to be a bit much POV attack.
• As to the "Be Nice" heading and your note to Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, I believe it was not I who began in with the personal attacks, and I am striving to remove myself from that form of negative unprofessional POV bickering. However, I am dismayed to find a long-time editor such as yourself participating in these personal attacks. As stated on the Talk:Landmark Education page, I myself would much rather engage in debate over the article content and sources than find myself attacked for citing those sources in the first place. Thank you for your time, Smeelgova 18:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, I can sympathize. Everytime I walk away from a Catholic priest (having been told, "Be good") I feel like I've just been accused of misbehavior. I tend to interpret it as "Stop being bad". Am I reading too much into this?

Anyway, I do appreciate your efforts at neutralizing a contentious article. And constructive criticism of one's edits is always better than being slapped in the face with the "wet fish of rv" :-) --Uncle Ed 18:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, well I'm breathing a sigh of relief that you actually seem to be able to carry on a sane, calm and polite conversation, unlike some other editors I have encountered. Thank you for your candor and kind comments. constructive criticism of one's edits is always better than being slapped in the face with the "wet fish of rv" :-) - I wholeheartedly agree. Smeelgova 20:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk

Hello, could you please head over to the talk page here and give us your opinion on the proposed change to the article? I'd appreciate it, thanks! Bagginator 10:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Still interested in what you think

The discussion was archived but i'm still interested to hear what you think Uncle Ed (If you ever wake up). Can you give me your opinion on the following?

Ive offered the following as meeting WP:V and WP:RS in regards to the sentence in dispute at the Intelligent Design article, "All leading proponents of Intelligent Design are affiliated with the Discovery Institute." The San Francisco Chronicle, August 28 2005 calls Norris Gravlox, "a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory" the Tribeca Film Festival calls Jack Cashill, "a leading proponent of intelligent design." The Orlando Weekly from September 1st 2005 calls Mat Staver, "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" and on May 26, 2006, the Legal Times calls John Umana, "a leading proponent of intelligent design" establishing WP:V and WP:RS.Bagginator 05:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously these real-world sources have different ideas about what a "leading proponent" is, than our in-house writing staff. I always prefer to quote or cite non-Wikipedia sources, as opposed to accepting the opinions of my fellow contributors. It's a scoping issue:

What is the scope of information to include in an encyclopedia, particularly on a controversial subject? While many contributors will be knowledgeable, some might be biased. In case of disputes between contributors, it's better to "step back" from the issue and agree to keep our own viewpoints out of it. We should just describe the views of non-Wikipedian sources such as book authors, political activists, judges, politicians, teachers unions, religious leaders, etc. No one is interested in what *I* have to say on the subject, as I am not a notable person (I'm just a writer). --Uncle Ed 13:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you can scratch Norris Gravlox from that list. It was apparantly written as a satire and not even a real person. However, I do hope when I get the time (And knowledge) to write up an RfC on this issue you will participate. Sincerely Bagginator 05:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul Weyrich

Don't let FeloniousMonk intimidate you. It's nice to see someone else who sees what I've been saying about that article for months. Keep up the good work.--Pravknight 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't let me down. I expect you to be a good partner in this matter. Please do your best to learn and follow all the Wikipedia rules. I have been here 5 years, and still I forget them now and then.

I can support you, as long as you abide by the rules. Forgive me if I suddenly seem to "distance" myself; that will only happen if you persist in breaking rules. Let me guide you, eh? --Uncle Ed 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC page

Ed, I userfied your RfC page on FM, because it wasn't signed, certified, formatted properly, or added to the RfC page. I've moved it to User:Ed Poor/FM until you decide how to proceed. It's a shame to see you in opposition like this. It'd be good to find a way to smooth things over, even if only by staying away from pages you both edit for a while. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

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.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring! Where's RickK when we need him?  :-) Despite these kinds of arbitration results, I'm glad you're around and never afraid to speak your mind. Be well, +sj + 16:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash

I am curious as to why you keep removing the bolding from the opening sentence of this article. I have replaced your changes once, and now must do it again. See Wikipedia:Lead section: "The subject of the article should be mentioned in bold face at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose, preferably in the first sentence. The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations." - Seinfreak37 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trynig to fix my own error where I bolded too much. THanks for fixing this. --Uncle Ed 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Flagellum

A number of people have shown that Behe was wrong on this issue. I have a nice reference at home that I can email you. Guettarda 21:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Then should Wikipedia that Behe was wrong or that Scientists X, Y and Z disagreed with Behe? It's a matter of (1) being neutral or (2) taking sides in a scientific dispute. --Uncle Ed 13:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a scientific dispute. It's a dispute about science. If Behe is verifiably incorrect, there is nothing wrong with reporting that. --ScienceApologist 13:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference? --Uncle Ed 13:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A scientific dispute is a dispute in the process of reaching scientific consensus. A dispute about science is when disputants tilt at the windmill of scientific consensus in hopes of taking down the "establishment". --ScienceApologist 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Recovery_from_Cults_(book)

You created this mess article which is now on Article for deletion again. Please give a vote and improve the article if it survives Afd. Andries 11:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Illusion and reality

I am a man who willing harbors many illusions, a man of persistent wishful thinking.

I wanted to believe that Wikipedia would fulfill its goal of approaching all controversies and disputes neutrally, but alas it is not so. The Liberal point of view has become enshrined in science and politics. So deeply entrenched is it, that the idea of "balancing" an article with "anti-mainstream" (i.e., non-Liberal) views has become anathema: compared to Holocaust denial. And once you invoke Godwin's Law the discussion ends.

I'll keep my Wikipedia account, of course, but I no longer have much hope for objective reporting from Wikipedia. It has become hopelessly infected with Liberal Media Bias. --Uncle Ed 19:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What does politics have to do with science? Is there such a thing as liberal theories? David D. (Talk) 19:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Ed and his church there are. C.f. Evolution, Global warming, Stem cell research, etc. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Relativity too, I should think, as conservatives love to point out that liberals think of things in relative rather than absolutist terms.  ;) •Jim62sch• 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

MedCom

Ed,

In the past, you have been of great service to us on the MedCom, as well as Wikipedia as a whole. Right now, I come to you asking for help. MedCom is highly backlogged, and the current six active mediators cannot hope to get through them in a timely manner. If you could take the time to help us out on a case or two, that'd be great. I would take on more, but with the departure of Essjay, I'm finding myself doing a lot of his administration tasks, as no one else seems to be stepping up to the task. So if you could lend us a hand, I'd be most grateful. Thanks again, and keep up the good work.

Respectfully on behalf of the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 20:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I am truly sad to see that Wikipedia has come to a point where such a valued user such as yourself is unable to contribute and help freely without fear of retribution and backlash. I respect your decision to remain separate from the MedCom because of your previous difficulties with ArbCom, and it is most understandable that you would wish to avoid such an encounter again. However, the position remains open, and at such a time where you feel comfortable returning to MedCom and assisting us, we will most certainly welcome you back, and as the kind of defacto MedCom Chair-of-the-Moment, I will defend your decision. Thank you. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very confident in your abilities as a mediator, otherwise I would not have sought you out. Just because you had a bad run with a particular mediation, then with ArbCom doesn't remove your abilities as a mediator. As you said, you had a good track record, and that's what I saw when I was looking over past instances. I personally endorse your return to the MedCom and I stand by my decision, to the ArbCom if need be. MedCom is in dire need of someone who has your qualifications, and doubting yourself because ArbCom says you are a POV-pusher is no reason to truly doubt your abilities. ArbCom is not god, despite the feelings of some others. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 20:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming NYC Meetup

You might want to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it... Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 23:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DakotaDreamer.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DakotaDreamer.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 17:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend the use of the image, and I deleted the only link we have to it. --Uncle Ed 17:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam WTO story

I saw you added the story on Vietnam joining the WTO. This story is a lie. It's not your fault, but please do not re-add this story. KazakhPol 03:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's verifiable, then the story is that Source X said that Vietnam is joining the WTO. Doesn't it have NTR status anyway? --Uncle Ed 12:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've explained on Portal talk:Current events. Please do not re-add the story. It's fake. KazakhPol 19:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I responded. KazakhPol 20:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Whether we agree or not on the issues of newsworthiness, notability or "fake news", you are certainly courteous and timely in your communications. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 20:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, thanks. I responded again. KazakhPol 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings I hope. I look forward to working with you in the future, KazakhPol 04:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Microsoft Intermediate Language

Yes, MSIL is theoretically platform independent - see Mono project. Tulkolahten 21:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Skating

LOL we ought to be careful, we're only a few reverts away from a 3rr hehe - crz crztalk 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Logic error programming example

Hi there Ed!

I wrote the example program, but I wouldn't claim it was good at all Template:Emot (~2.5 years programming experience ;). I felt like the last example wasn't good enough, but if you can write a better example (which I'm sure you can) then feel free to put it in instead of mine.

Best wishes,

Yuser31415 ^{reply!|contribs} 01:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Relax and don't worry. It takes ten years to learn computer programming. --Uncle Ed 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. I could program at the age of 10. 25 years later, I'm still learning. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Court case you mentioned

[16] sounds very interesting. Do you know what the name of the case was so I can look it up? JoshuaZ 16:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What? are you having trouble using Google? Gimme a break, Joshua. Or dig further back into my contribs, if you're going to keep dogging my trail. --Uncle Ed 16:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I actually was not "dogging" your trail. I already had Sun Myung Moon on my watchlist and I noticed the comment. I did do a breif google search but was unable to find the case you seemed to be referring to. It was a genuine question. JoshuaZ 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. But I wrote about it in a talk page sometime in the last 2 weeks. The answer to your question is indeed in my contribs - which are a matter of public record. --Uncle Ed 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No Ads?

You blanked part of my user page with the summary "No Ads Please". Can you show me the policy this violates? If not, I'll thank you to leave my user page alone. Rklawton 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't checked policy on this point for a couple of years; if self-promotion ads are allowed on user pages, that's news to me and good for you. Enjoy! --Uncle Ed 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 21:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Recovery From Cults

If you are willing to work on the Recovery from Cults (book) article, email me and I will send you John A. Saliba's critical review of the book. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 05:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

MS Access

Hi, Ed. You added the following to the Microsoft Access article: "One limitation of the programming environment is that controls must have "the focus" for their properties or methods to be accessed. Thus, if gaining or losing focus triggers any event handlers a cascading error will occur. Some programmers have speculated that this is a marketing strategem on the port of Microsoft to spur upgrade to VB or Visual Studio."

I was wondering if you could provide a little more deatil or a source where I could find a more on this? To the best of my knowledge (and from a quick test) you can access properties of controls and execute thier methods through vba wihout their having focus (such as when it is disabled). Perhaps I'm reading this wrong? Kuru ^talk 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on the version. I was using MS Access 2003. I typed in the contents of an error message.

If you've found a way to read the contents of a control, let me in on your secret! :-) --Uncle Ed 21:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been using all version of Access since 2.0 and it's simply false to say that I can't access a control's properties via VBA without the control having focus. Here's a bit of code behind a button that grabs a value from a textbox control: Me![SubContact].Form![tbxSuffix]. I've got other code where I'll spin through all the controls in a container grabbing values, setting properties (like visibility), etc. If there's something I'm missing, please let me know. Otherwise, the Access article needs a bit of re-work (at least the unsourced speculation about marketing). Rklawton 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you reading the form's recordset, or the current value of the control? (Either way, I'm happy to have the marketing speculation removed. That was a cheap shot and beneath me. ;-) --Uncle Ed 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If the control doesn't have focus, then both values are the same. If the control does have focus, then you have a choice. If you don't get what you're looking for, then let me know what you need and I'll send you a snip of code. Rklawton 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused on what you're doing to trigger the error - you should able to access all properties and contents of controls despite the form's focus. If you draw up a specific example, I'd be happy to take a look at it as well. As for the unsourced marketing comment - hey, its Microsoft, anything goes... :) Kuru ^talk 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Food insecurity

Ed, the AfD debate on Food insecurity has closed. Feel free to merge at your leisure. Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sanctions

Hello, Ed. You may find [17] interesting reading. For example, UNSC resolution 1173 directs all member states to "prohibt the direct import or export from Angola" that don't have the proper certificates from the recognised government. Morwen - Talk 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just read it. My question goes deeper. Is there some provision whereby any sovereign nations have agreed to grant the U.N. Security Council any authority over themselves?

The only country I know well is the U.S., and I've heard conflicting views. Some people say that U.S. sovereignty is absolute, and that we bind ourselves to obey Senate-ratified treaties but also reserve the right to abandon any treaty agreement; and that the U.S. is not subject in any way to the U.N. But another current of thought insists (or implies tacitly) that the U.S. *is* subordinate to the U.N. and must obey the rulings of its various parts, agencies or related bodies. The ICC controversy is a case in point --Uncle Ed 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant to the blood diamonds issue. Fact is, lots of nations signed a treaty, expressely giving, for the time being, the UNSC the right to do this. As part of the UNSC, the United States itself assented to this resolution. Not much room for doubt. The troubling issue that the United States has given indications that it may not consider itself bound by treaties it signed is another matter entirely, and is probably a matter for your local debating society and not Wikipedia. Morwen - Talk 14:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mercury-in-glass thermometer

Can you take a look at it now and let me know what you think. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that medical groups have agreed to comply with the environmentalist campaign to ban mercury, but that was not my question. I want to know how dangerous scientists say mercury is; particularly the amount of mercury in a thermometer.

• The amount of mercury in a single thermometer is usually insufficient to produce clinically significant exposure when ingested. However, the vapor can be absorbed; children, therefore, should not play with metallic mercury. Sporadic cases of acrodynia have resulted from children playing on carpet contaminated by metallic mercury. Once a carpet is contaminated, cleanup can be very difficult, and contaminated carpeting usually must be discarded.

This quote says not to let children play with metallic mercury; it does not say that a broken thermometer would poison or otherwise harm a person because of the vapors. --Uncle Ed 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• If a significant spill occurs, for example, several cubic centimeters, then consultation with a certified environmental cleaning company is advised.

How many cc's of mercury are in a thermometer? I don't think there's even 1 cc of glass in a thermometer. Think of hundreds of them fitting in a quart container of milk. --Uncle Ed 01:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thiomersal (Mercury containing compound in vaccines)

Ed, I think the fact that thiomersal, as a mercury containing compound, is hazardous to life is clear. That is the reason it was ever included in vaccines, is as a bacteriostatic, a "bacteria killer". It outright kills these simpler life forms. In humans, it has been conclusively demonstrated that even small very small amounts inhibit the myelin sheath formation around nerves, eventually causing the nerve to wither and die. The increase in autism spectrum manifestations concurrent with the increased number of vaccines on children's schedules in the 1990's (previous autism incidence of 1 in 10,000 shooting up to 1 in 150) leaves no doubt, at least in my mind that thiomersal is NOT safe. Some attribute this to better diagnosis, and perhaps that accounts for some increased cases, but not for a 2 order of magnitude increase. Statistic proof of its un-safety exists, (readDavid Kirby's "Evidence of Harm") but has been disputed by the pharmaceuticals companies whose monstrous liablility exposure would certainly bankrupt them. In fact, these pharmaceuticals have been heavily lobbying for legislative exemption from liability concerns, and in some cases have gotten it. The only "testing" ever done on thiomersal was to administer it to terminal meningitis patients in the 30's. Since they didn't seem to show any adverse effects in the following two weeks, it was assumed that thiomersal was safe. All of these test subjects died within a year or two from their meningitis. All were adults. No testing to prove safety was ever done in a manner that would pass muster today, and never on very young, suceptible developping children, and so evidently not tracing it's effects on them over a term of years.

It is generally and widely recognized that mercury is neurotoxic. I think the most accurate statement that can be made about thiomersal is that it has never been proven safe, (certainly not to the rigor that new medications would), that companies involved in it's manufacture have sought legal exemption from liability, and that it is being retired from active use. To say it has not been proven unsafe is more than a stretch. The statistical evidence is overwhelming. Best Regards, Intersofia 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Take a peek at this: How Mercury causes Brain Neuron Degeneration Intersofia 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay

Awesome meetup, Ed. Let's see where atomization of Wikipedia brings us. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Meetup

It was nice to meet you on Saturday. Sorry you got shafted with the bill. Seems like that's always the way. Maybe next time we should meet at a soup kitchen. Kafziel ^Talk 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Assembly of Experts

Hi, I saw you put a comment in Talk:Assembly of Experts . I want to mention you tomorrow (December 15 ) is the election of Assembly of Experts in Iran.--Sa.vakilian 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for input on the Hawthorne effect

Hello, Ed,

I see that you contributed to the talk page of the Hawthorne effect. I'm proposing some major changes to the article. Would you mind checking out the talk page and posting your opinion? Thanks, Dblomgren 05:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So many small articles that you created

May be some of the small articles that you created on the Unification Church can be merged. I noticed that creating many small articles is your habit in all fields. Hence I regret that your habit has been misintrepreted in controversial fields as POV pushing. Andries 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I like to start small, and then build on that. Many small articles, once each is good enough to stand on its own, can be merged into a larger article by a skillful editor. --Uncle Ed 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sovereignty of the UN Organization

Hello,

I stumbled across your article Sovereignty of the UN Organization. You created it over a year ago, and in that time, the article United States and the International Criminal Court has been created and expanded. Since the latter article now seems to be more complete, and accomplishes the same purpose as the article you created, I was considering merging any relevant information, and then redirecting your article to the newer article. However, you may have had some other purpose in mind for your article (i.e. covering more areas than just the relationship between the ICC and the United States), so I wanted to notify you before changing anything. If you wish to preserve your article, you should find other articles to link to it, categorize it, and expand it. This is not really my area of interest, so I can't be of a lot of help. Let me know what you think. --Danaman5 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My Analogy

Hi. I have been looking at an article you initially created, Cult apologist and I thought that you might be interested in taking a look at my analogy at Talk:Cult apologist. How long do you think my proposed article would last? Smile --Justanother 19:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sovereignty of the UN Organization

Hi. Back in May 2005 you created Sovereignty of the UN Organization. With all due respect it's a pretty poor article. It's mostly editorial in nature and poorly referenced. Since it was uncategorized, it has been floating in Wiki-oblivion since and I am tempted to prod it. Do you think that there's any way to salvage it? Otherwise, you could probably have it deleted per author request since no meaningful edits were ever made since you created it. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Blue (2002 film)

In case you hadn't noticed, Blue (2002 film) has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on evolution and creation

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Wikipedia:WikiProject on evolution and creation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject on evolution and creation]]. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. SpookyAction 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Free Teens

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Free Teens, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Free Teens. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Qqqqqq 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sovereignty of the UN Organization

I don't dispute that World government is an interesting topic. However Sovereignty of the UN Organization is written in a very biased way. There is no evidence whatsoever that the UN wants to become a world government or even that significant voices are calling for it to become a world government. The issues with the ICC are already discussed in other relevant articles and the content of the present article bears little or no connection to its title. Pascal.Tesson 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to take a glance at the World government article you cited. It says in its intro "...some people do see international institutions (such as the International Criminal Court, United Nations, and International Monetary Fund) as the beginning elements of a world government system."

The point is not the the UN itself wants to become a world government but that some people do see it as a beginning.

Or is our World Government article poorly referenced? ;-) --Uncle Ed 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to expand deletion sorting

Ed, I left a message on WikiProject Deletion sorting that I hope you could evaluate (see talk). Serendipitously (or not) a need for expanding the deletion sorting project scope also arose during a discussion about canvassing CFD's (see talk, and keep in mind I am the guilty canvasser discussed in the parent section). Both discussions could benefit from your input. I was also thinking that it might be possible to tag discussions as an added step in the nomination process. —Viriditas | Talk 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

God's Message to the United Nations

Hi Mr Poor. I found "your" article God's Message to the United Nations while searching through Special:Ancientpages. Is that article meant to be some kind of joke or hoax?--Montchav 01:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks, Ed, for jumping into the Marriage and Homophobia fracas.

no doubt, the LGBT interest group is going to label your NPOV corrections as POV and try to revert them. i and a few others have been trying to keep a lid on this obvious POV pushing from gays and allies (i don't consider myself anti-gay, but this is an interest group with their own official barnstar that insists that their POV is NPOV). when Webster and OED take "husband and wife" out of the lead definition of marriage, that's when WP should take it out. r b-j 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ed, are you interested in defending any component of your edit to Marriage? because the LGBT crowd doesn't like it, it will not stick unless defended. i think a compromize and reasonably NPOV lead to the article can be arrived at, but not until the gay-right interest group starts to understand that they don't own the article. just curious as to what you want to do. r b-j 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It will be a challenge. Basically, the movement to change the definition should be described, in perhaps Types of marriage. The concept that "kinship group" or "adult household" = "marriage" is controversial; therefore, we should describe the controversy rather than taking sides. --Uncle Ed 15:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made edits to the following today:

• marriage
• family
• monogamy
• talk:Homophobia

That's all I have time for. --Uncle Ed 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivory Coast move

Since you participated in previous discussions on Ivory Coast, you might be interested in the requested move at Talk:Côte_d'Ivoire#...Requested_move. —  AjaxSmack  06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Eric Heubeck

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Eric Heubeck, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

TQM and Hawthorne Effect

Greetings, Ed,

I'm working on the Hawthorne Effect article and I found that you linked TQM to it. (See [18].) I can guess at the connection you were implying, but could you spell it out? And maybe put it in the article?:) And maybe document it? :) :) (Or maybe just remove the link!)

Thank you. DBlomgren 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is no discernable connection, feel free to remove the link. I am personally interested in phenomena like the Pygmalion effect and the placebo effect: what is the role of human expectation in changing personal character and behavior?

When I tell my piano students that they are talented and improving, this seems to provide positive feedback and the actually become more talented and show more improvement. --Uncle Ed 14:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the mind is a powerful thing. I recommend The Holographic Universe if you haven't read it already. In the meantime, I think I'll remove the link. Thanks. DBlomgren 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick resolution to a Falun Gong dispute

Hi Ed, it's been a while. I hope all is well for you. I've got a favor to ask of you. Over the past couple weeks myself and another user, jsw663, have been engaged in an endless dispute over whether we should lable the Chinese government's actions against Falun Gong a "persecution" or a "suppression". Here is the link. The discussion has reached the point where I'm clear that neither of us will "give in". I know that you haven't been active on the Falun Gong pages for a long time, and I'm not requesting that you start (although that would be nice), but I've always respected your opinion and considered it very neutral. Right now there are no neutral users involved in editing these pages. So I was wondering if you could take some time to read through the discussion and write a post with your judgement on the matter. It doesn't have to be long. I will respect your opinion, no matter which side it falls on. I've also sent similar posts to users armedblowfish, and CovenantD. Hopefully we can get a best 2 out of 3.

Thanks, Mcconn 17:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say neither. Rather, say that Side X calls it "persecution" and Side Y calls it "suppression".

Suppression is a "neutral" term. Like, suppressing a fire with Halon (generally considered a good thing). Or suppressing a laugh, if you don't want to hurt someone's feelings. But it can also refer to suppressing an organization (considered bad, if you support that org!).

Persecution is a loaded term. As in "discrimination", it means treating someone badly.

A compromise might be to say:

• the authorities suppressed Falun Gong and that FG supporters say this amounts to "persecution". --Uncle Ed 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I appreciate and will definately consider your suggestion. I will wait for the response of the other users before making a decision. Mcconn 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:: I'm arguing for suppression not because anti-Falun Gongers are advocating it, but because it was a compromise. If I were to take the CCP line I would say no such suppression exists and FGers are making everything up. Thus the word 'suppression' does NOT represent the CCP side. But then McConn will never say I'm relatively neutral because I don't subscribe to his agenda. Jsw663 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your even-handed and mild description of your side in the argument. Writing neutrally about this issue is supremely difficult. Thanks for "checking in" with me here! :-) --Uncle Ed 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Climate alarmism

An editor has nominated the article Climate alarmism for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate alarmism. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Climate alarmism during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Talk:Homophobia suggestion

Well it seems it's my turn to need a little time to fully consider your proposal :-). But to give some initial thoughts... You might want to have a look at LGBT rights opposition, which is obviously closely related to your first bullet point. Since you raised it last time, I have been wondering why Discrimination against homosexuals (or Discrimination against LGBT people for the sake of completeness) doesn't seem to exist. I've tried obvious permutations but can't track down an article on the topic. I've suggest that the members of the LGBT studies Wikiproject look into it and if no such article exits, create one. It can then be decided if content should migrate from Homophobia. Having dealt with the peripherals, your main point. I guess my problem here is that the article doesn't read to me as asserting that all opposition to homosexuality is "phobic". The intro does, esp. "Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals", which seems far to broad and uncontested. But I would think the content of the article in general is in the right place. Are there any particular sections you find problematic? WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick, courteous and helpful response. You have hit all the points, and I think we are now "on the same page".

The ball is in my court now, but I will need to think this over at length :D so please bear with me once again.

The first thing I'd like to do is assemble a brief (?) list of article which already touch on this matter. What matter, you ask? The matter of "how supporters and opponents of gay rights issues see each other's viewpoints".

• Homophobia
• Heterophobia
• LGBT rights opposition
• Gay agenda
• Traditional marriage movement
• Religion and homosexuality
• Societal attitudes towards homosexuality
• LGBT rights

I've seen more mentioned this week, so once I review the talk pages I'll add some. Or you go ahead. My user talk page is "public". :-) --Uncle Ed 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added the articles that occured to me to your list, all seem relevant to the matter you identify. WJBscribe 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lowercase

It looks to me like you're the one who initially created the Template:Lowercase. In the german Wikipedia there is no such template. Because of this I started to stitch one together. But because I don't understand exactly what each line does I don't get it working. Would you like to fix it or help me to fix it? In the german WP I'm the User Speck-Made; the template is the Vorlage:Kleinschreibung

Not needed anymore... :-)--Speck-Made 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Chilean edits

Hello, Ed Poor, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | ^Talk 02:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for starting up the marriage penalty article.

i added a little more explanation to it. L8r, r b-j 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Homosexuality and medical science

I see that this is another article you started (albeit under a far more sensible name). The article now seems to have expanded to deal with pretty unrelated concepts and tries to lump them together under the present title. As I see it contains a number of distinct topics that should have their seperate treatment:

1. Gay disease. In terms of the slang term and its perjorative use and discussion of higher incidence/transmission rates of HIV among the gay community.
2. Genetics and homosexuality. As to whether homosexuality is inherented or acquired through environmental factors.
3. Reproduction by same-sex couples. ie. in vitro, surrogacy etc.

There is certainly a lot of material to use for the first two. As it stands the article is a mess and contains no references for what is supposed to be a reasonably scholarly treatment of the subject(s). I was wondering if you had any view on given your involvement with the article over the years? PS. I would be v grateful if you didn't mind archiving some of your talk page- I'm on a fairly slow old computer until my laptop is fixed and it takes a long time for it all to load up. Cheers. WJBscribe 12:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Events have overtaken this discussion as the article has been deleted following AfD. A copy was moved to User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science. I suspect working on new, sourced articles about the topics it covered may be a better idea than trying to recreate the present article in a more acceptable sourced, NPOV version. Again, I'd be interested to hear any thoughts you might have... WJBscribe 04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Call to delete Law of supply and demand#Criticism of supply and demand

Plese see Talk:Law of supply and demand discussion there regarding the recent edits of the critiscm section. Am seeking to remove the material because it is not relevant to the contents of the article. Cheers Joel Kincaid 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Peta pam.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pam back.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Per your request, I rv'd my re-removal of the attacks from the talk page.

I said X. ExUC replied with "can anyone honestly say X?" Since I have already said X, and ExUC was aware that I had said X, his comment excludes me from the subset of people who are speaking honestly. Thus, he has called me dishonest. He then changes it to "can anyone neutrally say X?" By the same token, he has defined my position as non-neutral.

Maybe, I don't know how, but maybe he did not mean what he so clearly said the first time. But if that were the case, he would have (a) apologised for the misunderstanding, (b) not-reinserted the offensive remarks, and (c) not gone on to make more offensive remarks. But ExUC did nothing of the sort - he escalated his attacks (calling me a POV pusher) and decided to (mis)use the JW talk page to attack me. I don't see how one can take his comments as anything other than sheer contempt - for me personally, for the community norms, for anyone who dares to challenge him on his "right" to engage in personal attacks...

Ok, this had exactly the opposite result of what was intended...when I think this through his actions appear worse then when I just go on my gut. But per your request, I'm going to stay away from the issue (and Wikipedia as a whole, probably) for a bit. Guettarda 14:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Can anybody honestly blame you? ;-) (Have a nice break!) --Uncle Ed 14:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

When I added my comment to the talk page of supply and demand, I didn't realize that you had posted one, and my edit did kind of delete yours by mistake. Sorry about that. Justinmeister 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's not like we're sitting in the same office. Timing is hard to coordinate over the Internet, unless we use IRC or something.

Cheers. :-) --Uncle Ed 16:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Theological argument"

Are you planning to write this article? Because otherwise it doesn't seem like a suitable redlink. How is this qualitatively different from other kinds of argument? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am. And the qualitative difference you ask about will be the article's primary focus. See talk:theological argument.

Sometimes I go about writing an article in a "backwards" way, linking to it before writing it. I hope this won't be a problem for you. --Uncle Ed 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, it just seemed like a surprising choice for a redlink.

I wouldn't characterize a theological argument in quite the way the material on the talk page is heading though. Questions about the existence of God are really the province of philosophy. Theological argument is presented within a religious context where certain propositions, including God's existence and (usually) a set of known characteristics thought of as revealed truths, and dogma resulting from theological issues that have been previously hashed out, are taken as axiomatic. Unsurprisingly, atheists reject these propositions a priori, so arguments between them and theists don't really approach the theological. A misguided theist might try to employ a theological argument against an atheist, but this is never a useful approach. And in a broad context, modern arguments about pseudoscience like ID is really an insignificant facet of the subject. (They evince this interesting contradiction though -- atheists and rational theists point out that ID is really theology in disguise, while ID proponents bend over backwards trying to pretend their theology really isn't. But I'm not sure this is material for an article so titled.)

(While I was typing the above, some stupid bot came along to tell you about tildes as if you hadn't signed. Go figure.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is good stuff! Thanks for jumping in and pointing that out before I embarassed myself by creating an inappropriate article. You make an interesting point about the distinction between theological argument and philosophical argument.

And you are right: my interest here is not so much the general topic but how it applies to the clash between religious believers and atheists/agnostics over evolution and intelligent design. Well, you've certainly given me food for thought. Thanks! :-) --Uncle Ed 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New World Encyclopedia

Thanks for creating the New World Encyclopedia entry at Mirrors and forks. There's one issue with the current site. The first link to GNU Free Documentation License is broken, and the bottom link goes to an offsite copy. You need to have at least one link (preferably the first) to a local copy of the GFDL, just as Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. Thanks. Superm401 - Talk 07:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've prodded New World Encyclopedia. Superm401 - Talk 07:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Corrigan

Now why didn't I think of that? Great job. Guettarda 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes taking time off leads to new thoughts, eh? :-) --Uncle Ed 17:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's really sad - it's such an obvious dab, and no one thought of it. But, of course, that's the problem - so often creativity is constrained by trying to focus on selecting the "better" choice, when "none of the above" is really where one should be looking (true in politics, and I'm guessing it's an issue in programming as well). Guettarda 17:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! Think of the religious wars over placement of curly braces; the editor war over vi and emacs; and so on ... *blush* --Uncle Ed 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget spaces vs tabs, micro vs monolithic kernels, imperative vs functional... --Gwern (contribs) 17:59 31 January 2007 (GMT)

I wish I could (oh my aching head!) --Uncle Ed 18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Planned/Command Economies

Thanks for starting up the split, I'll try and help out sometime this weekend. Fephisto 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A variety of issues

Ed, two things: first, while I understand your desire to help arrive at a consensus for the title of the Jonathan Wells article, given the highly controversial nature of the topic it would be advisable if you were to at least bring your suggestions up on the talk page before moving the article (which you have done twice). Second, regarding this comment, civility is nice thing. JoshuaZ 18:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Anyway, I think you're right about the "biology writer" thing (talk:Jonathan Corrigan Wells). --Uncle Ed 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Supply and demand

Ed,

I didn't mean to suggest that voluntary choices are not the cause of price. That's why I thought "product availability at each price" was somewhat misleading - it sounds like something sellers have no control of.

The price of a product is determined by a balance between production at each price (supply) and the desires of those with purchasing power at each price (demand).

"Production at each price" is not supposed to suggest that supply is an external or fixed variable, or one that doesn't depend on individual choices. I'm making the assumption that the supply schedule for a product is the sum of the supply schedule for individual producers, each of whom chooses the amount to supply that maximizes his utility. Perhaps this could be clarified by expanding on this sentence: "The supply curve for a given producer is derived directly from the sum of the area under the marginal cost curve."? Λυδαcιτγ 02:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding mixed economies, I agree that it's important to note the limitations of the model. But for clarity and to help non-expert readers, I tried to avoid doing so in the introduction by limiting the model's prediction to competitive free markets. Maybe I should write out "perfectly competitive" instead of just "competitive"? Λυδαcιτγ 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is confusing. Maybe we need two versions: a simple English, non-technical summary for the lay reader; and a more technically-complete version for students and experts.

• technical: the supply schedule for a product is the sum of the supply schedule for individual producers, each of whom chooses the amount to supply that maximizes his utility
• simple: suppliers each try to make as much money as possible, and the total of what each supplier offers is called the "supply schedule"

You plainly know more about the topic than I do, but perhaps I can copyedit some of the "hard-to-understand" parts.... --Uncle Ed 14:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. But I would like to avoid splitting the article up. Perhaps we should try to make it both accurate and easily understandable. This would probably necessitate more lengthy explanations:

• "The model of supply and demand assumes that both producers and consumers work in their self-interest. Each individual acts to maximize his benefit from a transaction, or his utility. In the case of suppliers, utility is maximized by making the greatest possible amount of money, while spending the least amount of time. [digress into marginal value curve] At higher prices, the marginal value of producing an additional unit will be greater, and suppliers will supply more. This explains the law of supply.
• "In a non-monopolistic marketplace, there are multiple sellers. Each seller, however, retains his individual supply curve. But the consumers are free to choose between all the sellers. The marketplace supply schedule is the sum of every supplier's individual supply schedule. Thus, it represents the maximization of utility for the entire group of suppliers, at every price."

I think that rather than dumb down the article by avoiding technical terms, we should introduce the technical terms in easy-to-understand ways and then use them. Here I tried to do this with utility. I can't really tell how easy to understand my writing is, but that's my basic idea. Λυδαcιτγ 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am absolutely against dumbing down the article. If readers can't understand the English Encyclopedia, there's a Simple English Encyclopedia. [19] --Uncle Ed 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's so much to it, that maybe we need an "Economics Portal". Portal:Economics redirects to Portal:Business and economics. --Uncle Ed 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to split up Portal:Business and economics, which is featured. But on the other hand, it looks a bit decrepit now, having no featured content for January. Λυδαcιτγ 00:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dang

You "pegged" it. <g> Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks, Ed, for your gracious replies on my page and on ID talk.Trishm 04:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Coyne

If you are going to rely on notability as a scientist, the articles needs a more formal style for that part :

• listing college degrees with university and year -- and putting the university names in double brackets
• listing important awards
• listing important memberships and offices held
• listing books published as formal references style: Author, title, Publisher, year ISBN if possible.
• listing some major published papers, say how many.

and, most important, giving some 3rd party sources. for his work as a scientist. A website at a university etc. can be one, but it cannot be the only one. Book reviews are fine, or a newspaper stories. Print or web is OK, but not from a list or a blog.

These is also, unfortunately, prejudice against people from the academic world, & there will be those anxious to send this particular article to AfD for other reasons. DGG 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Polar bear

I think that this sort of thing is not appropriate. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to give a reason for this assessment?

Sure, if a link to one petition is allowed then why not any petition? How about this petition link that I also removed? A link to a particular petition could be seen as an endorsment by Wikipedia of a particular group or position. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea there was a petition on that page. I was merely quote-mining. I'll check more carefully for that sort of thing in the future. Thanks for the tip! :-) --Uncle Ed 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I just came back here to apologise as well. I just thought about the way I had phrased the original remark. I llok like a right pompous asshole. Sorry about that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What happened?!

Hi Ed. Remember this?! That was a while ago wasn't it?! Anyway, I just noticed you name mentioned on a list of people de-sysoped, and wondered: what happened?! Hope you're well. Cheers, --Rebroad 12:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a serious violation of the rules regarding consensus and disruption. And it took me an exceedingly long time to realize the error of my ways.

The point is not merely to be "right" but to be "good". Anyone can find the right answers, you only have to be clever for that. But to good requires wisdom. --Uncle Ed 15:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Thanks for replying. Funny thing wisdom... Hard to tell when one doesn't have it until one gets it. Was it Socrates that said something like "The one thing I know is that I know nothing". Got any tips on how to be good please? I think I could probably do with some lessons, but at the moment, I have no idea if I've ever been good so far!! Maybe it's partly because of this that I recently requested a peer review of my edits to date! --Rebroad 18:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ID

Ed, about your posts to the ID talk page, this is an article that has suffered a lot from creationists of one kind or another turning up in order to disrupt it. For that reason, the best thing on the talk page is to stick only to discussing the article and sources. This kind of post, offering personal opinions, is the kind of the thing that tends to be seen as unhelpful. I hope you don't mind me pointing this out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. I respect your input at all times. If a post, which I think has relevance to the task of improving the article, seems off-topic to you - then I'll simply avoid that page altogether.

I did not intend to disrupt, either in my edits to the page (the 2002 Natural History article which one contributor said actually had some relevance) or on the talk page. --Uncle Ed 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate. Actually at Talk:Intelligent_design#Viewpoints_which_favor_ID you'll see that there's broad consensus that the Natural History article you inserted was not relevant and the manner in which you inserted it was highly biased. FeloniousMonk 06:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Politics/Science of Global Warming

Hi, Ed Poor.

I can appreciate your long tenure with Wikipedia, the Wikipedia is truly a wonderful resource, however, I do not appreciate your condescension. I don't think I need advice regarding my corrections to the article Global warming, however I would like to offer you a bit of advise: remain neutral, and in instances where there is bias, or offer balance.

You inadvertently pointed out, the scientific issue of Global Warming has become bastardized into a "political" issue. This is precicely what I corrected by highlighting the fact that the IPCC is a political body of delegates, not scientists. Hence my correction, or at best, a clarified definition of the IPCC.

You INcorrectly point out that Wikipedia's science articles reflect whatever the current "consensus" is even if it reflects a bias. The articles cannot be called "scientific" if they are based on theory or bias. What is missing is the truth obfuscated by fancy catchwords and official titles by people who let politics rule their hearts instead of the truth of science. Nazi Germany certainly had consensus on "Jewish Question", yet it didn't make it correct just because there was consensus and quack-science. And to quote you "Remember, 140 years ago nobody knew that germs cause disease. It wasn't until the last quarter of the 19th century that men like Pasteur, Lister and Koch began to attract positive attention to their work (see Germ theory of disease and Ignaz Semmelweis), the official line of the powers that be was the world was flat, and the Earth was the center of the universe. Consensus doesn't equate to truth, so the article cannot be scientific and still contain blatant bias. Until the issue is resolved with incontrovertible proof, as was the case with germs, the issue must remain open to all legitimate and scientifically plausible views, whether you like it or not.

So, if the article is politically charged, or contains bias, it deserves balance, which I was providing. The sources that I referenced are just as legitimate and scientifically valid as those viewpoints of the United Nations body. ronjamin 17:41, 5 February 2007

A word of caution

About this suggestion [20] and the many others like it you've been making like it lately... Yet once again you're seeking to elevate a minority view in a way that violates WP:NPOV, and it is becoming a recurring problem. Your recent resumption of your old habit of bouncing from article to article on topics around ID and global warming adding biased or questionable content, edit warring, and then arguing ad nauseum for changes that ignore or violate policy is becoming disruptive. I see you've already been spoken to several times about this above over the last 3 days and yet you are still at it. Since you are on probation for disruption and you show no willingness to abandon this pattern I for one won't be surprised if the community is finally compelled to seek enforcement of the terms your probation. There's a limit to how much biased editing and tendentious argumentation the community will tolerate, and for those already on probation that threshold is very low indeed. FeloniousMonk 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While I refuse to elevate the minority view on science articles, I don't see why this would be inapproptiate in an article about the propononent of said minority view. Why would this be discouraged? Don't we want to have a record of his opinions in his bio? David D. (Talk) 15:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

---

<< Don't we want to have a record of [an author's] opinions in his bio?>>

No we do not. To have a record of an author's opinions in his bio would be actual NPOV. But the Wikipedia community has no interest in actual NPOV. The payoff from dog-pack politics is driving off anyone promoting actual NPOV. And the violent threat is effective because the Wikipedia community has no interest in actual NPOV. For as history has shown, actual NPOV will be removed from Wikipedia pages--by such dog-pack mechanisms as "enforcement," "probation," and "threshold." Let us merely watch the mechanisms work. --Rednblu 18:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah we meet again my friend. I do like sarcasm too, really :) David D. (Talk) 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth is the harshest sarcasm of all. --Rednblu 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You mangled the special characters in Obesity

This edit to Obesity replaced most of the special characters in the article with either question marks or the corresponding un-accented letters. I assume this is due to copying and pasting the article into some Unicode-unaware text editor to make your edits and then pasting it back again (since your previous edits to the article were fine). Please don't use whatever program that was for editing Wikipedia in the future; see Wikipedia:Text editor support for more details and editor suggestions. I've fixed this instance but I assume you may have used the same program on other articles so it might be worth a look through your contribution history. DopefishJustin 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The science is settled

Hi there. I just thought I should let you know that I have nominated The science is settled, to which you have contributed, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The science is settled. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, and yes

Actually peppered moth is one of the most confusing, since the story has moved on a long way since 2001. Haeckel's drawing is interesting, though it would be pretty confusing too. But the problem with what ExUC was adding is that it's just two quotes without context.

I think that all ten icons should be discussed. There's a lot of material out there, both from Wells and others. Homology might be the simplest to start with - while it looks like Wells gets in wrong, so do the textbooks, so it makes for an interesting story. Guettarda 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the aspect that Wells brings out is his claim that the moth photos and the embryo drawings were "fakes". His contention is that teachers should not point to, say, a photo of moth stuck to a tree and say, "See? This proves natural selection causes evolution."

Maybe I have to read more of Icons but I think JW's main point is that educators have been using the 10 examples inappropriately as evidence for evolution. --Uncle Ed 18:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Raul654

Thank you for contacting me on my talk page. However, it still remains there is a problem with the user Raul654. First and foremost, the does not assume good faith in my edits in particular and often violates the 3 revert rule. I am sure this holds true for others. Second, he has repeatedly made personal attacks against me, either in the edit summary or elsewhere. Third, he is uncivil.

I have often called him out on his vandalism on other articles, as well as the other violations listed above. Perhaps this is a source for his resentment.

Regardless, I care not which users are administrators or bureaucrats. These people are not special people above the principles and policies of Wikipedia and its users. Elitism is not something Wikipedia should advocate for. Incompetence should not be tolerated for elected persons. I do not care for special friendships between bureaucrats or ex-bureaucrats. Just like in government, the elected officials are no more special and the rest of the citizens, despite their apparent powers. I will call anyone out on their violations.

So long as this user does not adhere to the policies of Wikipedia, there will always be a dispute. So long as this user continues to advocate his spurious and insulting comments on my talk page, there will always be resentment. ~ UBeR 17:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent design

[21] I was surprised to learn of your history [22] and that they let someone with such a background serve on the Mediation Committee. Please tell me, what is your role there? 151.151.21.101 18:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You'd be surprised to note the incompetence of many elected peoples at Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was appointed by Jimbo. I'm currently inactive, but I've been asked to become active again despite objections such as the above. --Uncle Ed 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Selected or elected, it's all the same. Note, too, my comment wasn't necessarily about you and was not meant to be offensive. ~ UBeR 19:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. I'm good at mediating as long as I can keep from getting emotionally involved. --Uncle Ed 19:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And so then I make my leave and bid my farewell with this message from D. D. Eisenhower, "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." ~ UBeR 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Was your appointment by 'Jimbo' before or after your, um, difficulties? 151.151.73.169 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No Thanks for the comment(s)

I want you to know that I really appreciate your efforts to reach out and be a friendly Wikipedia neighbor. Thank you! Joie de Vivre 19:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I want you to know that I am really not pleased about how you copied MY EXACT WORDS from my userbox template, including "Not to be taken internally", "For a stronger America", "Relevant/Irrelevant userboxes" and any other jokes I made up and put in there. I retract my above statement, because copying others' work without crediting them is not the action of a good neighbor. I am not suggesting you credit me, I am asking you to remove the written content. Frankly, if you can't come up with your own jokes, you should just have a boring user page. How is it being "true to yourself" to pass off someone else's words as your own? Joie de Vivre 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have removed those. Please continue to let me know if I make any more such errors. :-( --Uncle Ed 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. It's a good thing that you put in that first userbox.  :) Joie de Vivre 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Apology

It was so refreshing to me to see an administrator on this site acknowledge the error of his ways and actively attempt to promote the kind of democratic culture that allowed for Wikipedia's creation in the first place.

So many other users are unrepentant (Mongo comes to mind) or have to be forced out in disgrace (Zoe) before their oppression and power-lust stops. Thank you so much for being the exception to the rule.

There is much that you could teach other administrators.

Ed Poor looks up to you!

I only wish I had realized my mistakes earlier. :-( --Uncle Ed 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Move of List of scientists opposing global warming consensus

Hi Ed. I always had a reasonable degree of respect for you. We disagree a lot, but we both care about Wikipedia. But this move is a new low. It is clearly against consensus, with no discussion by you, and no reasons given. I am disappointed. --Stephan Schulz 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)