User talk:Ed Poor

Current Wikistress

Revert on Jack Sarfatti article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

unrelated comment. I don't know how to make a new post. I am just trying to contact Ed Poor I wanted to mention, before even i signed up I could actually edit pages on this site. Does that mean any body could come and wipe out all the posts here? when I clicked save page it actually went through! is that for real. By the I am a Unificationist too, please email at mailto:firsttrueparents@gmail.com P.s. Your pages on Father have ranked up to 12th place in google search engine under the keyword Rev. Moon Biography. Thank you for the hard work let me know anything i can do.--Shahramsfamily 08:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I quit

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

I'm supposed to be on vacation.

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

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

Don't go

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please help (Macedonians)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, but I didn't require the article to stall then, did I? Nevermind. See you in November, good luck with your renovation. --FlavrSavr 12:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response

Sorry, I was too busy all last week to wrap my head around this one. I gather a lot of this hinges on the true meaning of the English words Macedonia and Macedonians. A related question is probably:

• Who are the real Macedonians / Macedonians / Macedonians? (note 3 slightly different formats of the links)

I hope that parties to this dispute (here at Wikipedia) will agree to describe this naming dispute fairly. Can we all agree that Wikipedia should not take sides on this? That Wikipedia should leave the matter unresolved, but only say this side feels that "Macedonia" refers to X, while that side says it really should refer to Y? Uncle Ed 12:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• [Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms] might not give you what you want, but I think it's a good starting point.

Your request for my intervention might result in a reformulation of Wikipedia policy, but I hope not. I think we can resolve this with a bit of good-natured discussion. Uncle Ed 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at talk:Macedonia naming dispute. Uncle Ed 13:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you (VERY MUCH) for your response, but you're missing the point and the main dispute. The main dispute is not about the name of the region, but the name of the ethnicity, namely the majority of the Republic of Macedonia. I'll try to explain the problem as short as I can.

The wider region of Macedonia, is divided between the Republic of Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The Republic of Macedonia does not encompass the whole region of Macedonia.

There are several ethnicities living in the region of Macedonia - Greeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Albanians. There are several ethnicities in the Republic of Macedonia, and the majority of them are the Macedonians (the article about them, for some reason, is to be found at Macedonia (Slav)). The current Macedonians article is about the ethnicities living in the region of Macedonia, of whom, only the majority of the Republic of Macedonia, use Macedonians as an ethnic identifier.

The dispute is not about the region of Macedonia, but for the ethnic majority in the Republic of Macedonia. Namely, the Greeks oppose that this ethnic group should be referred to as Macedonians, as they believe that this would be monopolization of the "Macedonians" identifier. They feel that they are the true Macedonians (the descendants of the Ancient Macedonians). Their proposal is to label the majority ethnicity of the Republic of Macedonia as "Macedonian Slavs".

The majority ethnicity of the Republic of Macedonia, however, refuses that term as derogatory. Their stance is that because they are the only ones that are identifying themselves as Macedonians in an ethnic sence, there is no harm in referring to them as Macedonians or ethnic Macedonians. (The vast majority of foreign sources, and encyclopedias refers to them as "Macedonians", as well)

I propose that the current Macedonians article remains as it is (referring to all the inhabitants of the wider region of Macedonia), while we should move the current Macedonia (Slav) article to Macedonians (ethnic group). What is your opininon on this proposal? --FlavrSavr 16:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile, you might also want to read Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names, as well. When ChrisO applied the table method, (see the talk page, the result was a clear win for the Macedonians (people) option. Also, a question: Is this some sort of Mediation? At the moment, that doesn't make much sense, as the Greek POV refused it? However, I welcome the involvement of neutrals in the dispute, in any forms or shapes. --FlavrSavr 17:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a sort of Mediation. The other "party" doesn't have to say anything for a mediation to be successful. The only condition for success is that there is no more conflict!

Just kidding: actually, we do need to come to an agreement of some kind. Give it time. And take a look at Talk:Macedonia naming dispute for some preliminary work I've done to prepare for this mediation. Uncle Ed 18:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. We really need more neutrals. If you ask me, the question is about application of Wikipedia policies, namely the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy. (Did you see it?) But that's me. Also, it would be a good thing if Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Poll#Resources section is applied at Talk:Macedonia naming dispute, after some cleansing of vandalism. And I assure you I gave this dispute time - I mean, 4 months have passed, and we still don't have a solution :-). So, I'm not pushing you, but, I would really appreciate if we could solve this dispute in a matter of days or weeks, not months. Regards. --FlavrSavr 20:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Nods tolerantly. Do you know how long it took to settle the Wikipedia naming dispute over Danzig/Gdansk? If the "ethnic Macedonians" thing gets settled before Christman, consider yourself lucky. Uncle Ed 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yikes! And that dispute isn't even a bit as complicated as the Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs dispute is. Oh, well... --FlavrSavr 21:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Leaving?

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

So sorry to see you upset!

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

Thanks, Mama. And thanks to all who wrote in to express your support in this time of difficulty for me. Uncle Ed 16:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really quitting

As some of you guessed or realized, I'm not really quitting. But I was rather upset. Things did not go as I had planned or desired. But I take heart from the many messages of support sent my way, and have found new inspiration.

But this doesn't mean my job is any easier. Rather, I see the challenges as forcing me to go up to a higher level of devotion, tempered by a new wisdom:

Satan says to God, "I became an evil scoundrel as a result of the fall, but you and good people can't use methods that are similar to mine, can you? I may like to fight, but you're not supposed to enjoy fighting. Even when you take a blow, you have to endure, don't you?" Thus, God's philosophy is one of non-resistance. [6]

These words from Rev. Sun Myung Moon provide the answer to my prayers. They are not a comfortable answer. They do not make me feel contented or assured. Yet they carry the ring of truth: they feel right to me. Uncle Ed 16:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't picture Satan saying "scoundrel" unless he was played by Tim Curry. --Zephram Stark 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL, thanks, Z. You seem to have identified Lucifer with Satan. Sounds like you're well on your way to finding the "chosen one". Uncle Ed 17:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

talk:Homophobia

Ed, I see you have helped out on the Talk:homophobia page before and I want to enlist your help again. It seems that some editors there refuse out of principle to include a statement that "some opponents of homosexual acts believe the term 'homophobia' is a controversial epithet." I think I have provided a pretty good case for citing some form of controversy around the use of the term, but others disagree. Please help with a third party NPOV view because we have both reverted twice now. MPS 19:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It hinges on the meaning of the word controversial. Try saying instead that:

• Some opponents of homosexual acts object to the use of terms like 'homophobia' or 'homophobic' on the grounds that ...

You might also point out that

• Some opponents of homosexuality snicker at being label 'homophobic'. They argue that the label is incorrect, since it implies that hate or fear homosexual persons and that it is irrational for them to do so. They argue further that their objections to homosexuality are not motivated by hatred or fear, but stem from a rational appreciation of ... [or are firmly rooted in religious / moral principles]

Bear in mind when you discuss this tangled, fractious and highly contentious issue that different parties use the word homophobia in different ways. Uncle Ed 19:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

How to describe the fringe

You wrote on my talk page:

You wrote elsewhere:

You are correct that we should not dismiss someone simply because that person is not accepted by mainstream science. What we should do is report the views of those who support and those who oppose any such person, and attempt to indicate both the numbers and the credentials of those who support and oppose, as well as attrributing specific comments to specific individuals whenever possible, and not express as absolute truth any side of any such controversy

This is an excellent set of general rules. I agree wholeheartedly. You are to be commended for being able to express these principles, and to advocate our adherence to them considering how much trouble has, er, arisen in our dealings with user:JackSarfatti.

Rest assured, he will remain blocked unless and until he withdraws his legal threats and gives at least the glimmer of a hope that he'll stop being so abusive to Wikipedians. Note that I do not say "other Wikipedians", because if he can't abide by our civility rules, he cannot become a Wikipedian. Uncle Ed 20:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I am very glad to hear it. I was afraid that he had been left unblocked either becauae some bend over backwards to not 'oppress" those who express fringe views, or because of his legal threats. i was not about to block him myself, as an involved editor.

Do you think it would be a good ideat to draft Wikipedia:Dealing with fringe science and include a version of the above? or is this redundant with WP:NPOV and other relevant policies. DES ^(talk) 20:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I've already posted your text there, crediting you as the author. Uncle Ed 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oil painting

Saw your comment on the talk page of this article. thought you may care to support my nomination for oil painting as a Collaboration of the Week by voting at: Wikipedia:Collaborations_of_the_Week. --bodnotbod 05:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master Arbitration case closed

The Zen-master Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master, which you commented on, has been closed, with the following remedies:

• Zen-master is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case. Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that Zen-master be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive, they shall place a template {{Zen-master banned}} at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify them on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including Zen-master, at the end of the ban. If Zen-master edits an article they are banned from, they may be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, up to a week for repeat offenses.
• Zen-master is banned for one week for making personal attacks.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know this. Also, I have proposed that per-article blocking be put into effect by the developers. When they do so, we can be even less restrictive on remedies like this. Uncle Ed 16:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

IRC

[13:18] Cool_Cat_: I dotn know
[13:18] Cool_Cat_: Ed_Poor edit your userpage
[13:18] Cool_Cat_: Ed_Poor now we are all skeptical
[13:18] RobChurch: Don't worry about it.

Great to have you back!

I never thought you failed on Price-Anderson, but rather that you were making good progress until other events went out of control. I felt forced to ask for a new mediator when Ben started editing again and your meter was bright red. I'm really glad to have you contributing! Simesa 18:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and I think the change of Mediator will be beneficial. I can't do everything myself, and trying to do so isn't nearly as helpful as encouraging teamwork. Uncle Ed 20:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Anne Frank

Ed, is there anyway you can take a look at Anne Frank? User:Redzen has violated the 3RR with his latest revert (see bottom of talk page, he's reverted four times in 24 hours) and I'm all out of reverts. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 01:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Slaps both of you around with a wet trout. ;-)

I learned to say that on IRC and am very proud of my new vocabulary. But seriously, you shouldn't have gone toe to toe over this. 1RR is enough. Then you discuss it on the talk page.

I'll see you both tomorrow, after you've cooled off, okay? Uncle Ed 02:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course I'll still thank you, Ed. I knew exactly how you would respond, and you didn't disappoint. :-). Now, leave the fish alone! (except for this one) BTW, I forgot to actually say thank you for your help. Mahalo. --Viriditas | Talk 10:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Is that Hawaiian? Check out my article on a movie set in Hawaii: 50 First Dates. Uncle Ed 14:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Six Sigma

Ed, with all due respect, Six Sigma may very well be just a buzzword, but that's no reason to summarily eliminate the vast majority of a page that describes the development and the theory behind the process/methodology/attitude/whatever you choose to call it. I will grant you that there isn't much on actual methodology, but that's like eliminating the biographical section of the Victor Hugo article because there's not enough analysis on his writing. Instead of just removing content, it would serve us better to improve the mediocore methodology sections that the article already has. I'm planning to condense the stuff you removed and put it back in the article, but let me know if I'm misunderstanding the reason behind your edits. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No, you got the reason correct. But perhaps I was too hasty. I felt I was sweeping up some trash.

If there is a theory there, I'd love to read about it. I'd even like to know how they developed it. Hey, don't get me wrong: my dad made a living applying it. I just never saw any more to it that a 5 or 6 step checklist.

On the other hand, you could reduce Deming's idea to "Plan, do, study, act" and call it PDSA.

Please go ahead and condense; I probably went too far to fast. But if I got you to get your act in gear, maybe it was good? :-) Uncle Ed 02:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it was good :). Someone came along a couple months ago (right as I was on my way out for a wikibreak) and added a rather large section of information that was already mostly summarized right above it. I've removed most of that. Basically, the theory that's covered is the reasoning behind the six in six sigma; where it came from, etc. As for the theory behind the methodology, that's something that we still don't have. I need to check out a book from the library or something to really start to nail that stuff down. But that's yet another project to work on when I should be paying attention to school :). In any case, I think the second and fourth paragraphs of the "Why 6" section speak on your concerns, but let me know if there's still a problem. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

On User Talk:JackSarfatti you wrote: "If you'll tell me - right here on this page - that you're planning to withdraw your threats of legal action unconditionally - then I will gladly unblock your Wikipedia user account. I believe the other Admins will support this.

"You can then assure us of your good faith by deleting all the adverse comments you have made about other contributors, as your first act upon returning."

I would object unless Jack Sarfatti promises to abide by WP:NPA as well as by WP:NLT or at least not to make such outragous personal attcks in future as he has made in the past.

I also do not wish his attacks against me removed from any of the relevcant talk pages -- i want them to remain to document what was said and how people responded. if Sarfatti now regrets or disavows those comments, let him strike them through, and/or post an apology for them, but if they are removed I will be inclined to revert.

I add that the "archive" of his talk page is currently a red-link, which is against good practice, particualrly in a case like this. Are you inb mid-move with the archiving? DES ^(talk) 03:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The archive's on the talk page of the redlink. --fvw* 03:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think your last edit summary was a little hypocritical? silsor 03:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Er, Ed, I'm not sure if what you told User:JackSarfatti (as quoted by DES above) is true. I suspect that other admins may have trouble supporting a warm welcome for that user, given his behaviour so far. DES has shown remarkable restraint, given the quantity and nature of the abuse User:JackSarfatti has heaped on him.

Given this edit, Jack–at a minimum–owes an apology to the community for his shameful behaviour. I wouldn't even consider unblocking him without some sort of enforceable agreement to abide by WP:NPA and WP:NLT. It would help if he demonstrated an ability to abide WP:CIV, too. Otherwise, I can't see any benefit to Wikipedia that might accrue from his unblocking. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades. And, DES, I started the archive but lost network connectivity. I hope someone has completed it.

Jack phoned me this morning (8:00 A.M. California time) and promised everything. I'll check his user talk page this afternoon, because I'm busy right now; there's no hurry on this.

I suggest a cautious and tentative welcome, and I agree with the idea of using strikout instead of deletion. If this thing ever blows over, we can archive the talk pages in question - but I see that as a matter of months, not days. Uncle Ed 16:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I completed the archive process, and the link is now blue. I see that this user has indicated that he approves of "removing" the "legal action statements". I do not see a clear promise to abide by WP:NLT in future. I also do not see any mention of civility and personal attacks, and I would like to. DES ^(talk) 16:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have left a note for DES regarding Jack's statement that he will abide by WP:NPA and WP:NLA and strike out the personal attacks he has made. (I will set aside for now his statement that he has not made any personal attacks for 'several days'.)

As far as I know, DES has suffered the most unpleasantness from User:JackSarfatti; if DES approves of the agreement (or any amendments and additions as may be necessary) then JackSarfatti could be unblocked...with the understanding that he will be on a very short leash. Where possible, I'll try to keep tabs on Jack Sarfatti, too—I don't want to contribute to the article, but I don't mind stepping in if other editors think they can kick Jack while he's down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I just read the note on my talk page, and the diff linked to in that note. My response:

1) As long as Jack Sarfatti abides by the promises he made in that diff, i have no objections to his editing. I have a suspicion that he may fall afoul of WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR, but I am willing to assume good faith and wait until that happens, and I hope it doesn't.

2) I hope that other people will keep an eye on his edits, at least to the Jack Sarfatti article, and in any case if he returns to his former patterns, that he be brought up short.

3) I have no intent to "kick Jack while he is down". I think that nagative views of him are sufficiently notable that reports of them must be included in the article, but any such views ought to be properly attributed and sourced, and any positive veiws that can be similarly sources should also be reported. Limited personal prefernces that do not affect the encyclopedic value of the article I think we should be soemwhat accomodating on.

4) I would be willing to help show him the ropes on wikipedia, but given our prior interaction, it would probably be best if soemone else did this. I think it would be a very good idea if soemone undertook to give hime a but more of a tutorial on how wikipedia works.

5) While I would be gratified if he chose to apologize for past comments, I don't want that made a condition of unblocking -- a coerced apology is of no value at all.

In short, if you feel comfortable in unblockling him, I will not object. In view of our past interaction, if I see a problem with his future editiong I would engage another uninvolved admin rather than block personally. I hope that there will be no reasion to think about doing either. DES ^(talk) 14:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Very gracious of you, sir. I'll remove the block, and let's see what happens. Uncle Ed 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for that. Is there an overall point you're leading up to? As before, I'm not going to agree to broadly generalized terms that then get followed on by some "and so therefore we can conclude..." I don't intend for this comment to be somehow belittling of your effort, as the spirit behind it is greatly appreciated, it's just not the way I prefer to try to come to a meeting of the minds. I would rather you just be direct with me. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Er, right. I think I've done this to you once or twice before. Makes me seem kind of manipulative, doesn't it? [Uncle Ed gets ready to pounce]

Wham! He catches the poor little mouse in his sharp claws! (bad ed, bad ed!)

Okay, what I'm leading up to is a discussion of the U.S. Congress's agencies (like GAO) as "objective sources". I'm going to give my opinion that even a highly respected non-partisan agency of the world's most benevolent and well-liked nation (America), nevertheless should not be automatically accorded "authoritative source" status. Rather, we should say that nearly everyone respects agency X as a reliable, unbiased source of information.

I'm wary of endorsing any source. Who's next as a source? Bodies created by the UN? Uncle Ed 19:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Laugh! Well, I understand your position. I'm highly skeptical in general. But I can tell you that in my line of business, and I mean reporting at the national level, these entities are generally considered fine for use as source material on items such as these. Historical facts. I don't see why Wikipedia should be treated any differently, particularly when there's an in-line link provided right there for anybody to see. There are definitely times when I take information from, say, the GAO, and I do identify its source -- but that generally only happens when this reporting entity is reaching some conclusion, taking a position. I.e., our research showed that Bush is a bastard. I'd never just write that kind of thing, regardless of the source, as a plain fact -- I'd say the GAO found that Bush is a bastard. But this isn't necessary when using an entity like GAO as a basic summation of the facts behind some historical something. Either it's true or it's not, and I have no reason to think the GAO would not properly summarize the facts behind some historical event. It's fine to then say "but groups X Y and Z say that this is REALLY what was behind it." I'm not trying to quash a diversity of critical opinions. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

How about situations where a Congressional agency and some obviously partisan lobbying group are at odds? [Uncle Ed gets ready to pounce] Shall we say (Wham!) that CBO said the measure would cost $10 billion, and Citizens for Fair Energy Taxes said it would cost $25 billion? (poor little mousie & bad ed!) Uncle Ed 19:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but that speaks to my point. CBO does its own original cost-projecting. If it crunched numbers and came up with that, then I'd source it to them. Often CBO and Congress itself have different numbers. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it doesn't really support your point over mine. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting us nowhere

regarding your post, you tell me to request mediation when the problem occurred while you were mediator. I don't need any more of that. Since it doesn't appear that the mediation committee is eager to answer my questions, I'll leave you with a few questions, instead.

Show me an NPA violation in Neuroscientist's post that deserved a warning from you.

Show me an NPA violation in my /block directory that qualifies as a "clear and obvious personal attack" [7] worthy of a second block by you.

Explain to me how you want from saying "Slim moved too far, too fast" [8] to attacking it as "sneaky way of building a case", "gaming the system in a hypocritical bullying way", and "spurious" [9].

Explain to me how you block me for NPA and then days later tell me "I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!! [10]. And explain to me how I would not have been blocked for posting such an educational lesson to someone such as, oh, say, SlimVirgin.

Tell me exactly how you, as mediator of the Terri Schiavo article, managed to ignore any grievances regarding SlimVirgin's edit containing factual and NPOV problems, her multiple denials of a single factual error, her multiple accusations of policy violations on our part, and yet as mediator you warned Neuroscientist for criticizing SlimVirgin, blocked me a second time for working on an RfC against SlimVirgin, attacked the RfC against SlimVirgin, adn then attacked me personally. How, exactly does that count as successful mediation? or even mediocre mediation? Duckecho, Neuroscientist, and A ghost were all good editors and left immediatly after this whole fiasco. Do you think it may have had something to do with the fact that mediation failed them miserably? Or am I to believe that their complaints against SlimVirgin were completely baseless? FuelWagon 22:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall counting this as a successful mediation. By definition, if one of the sides remains unsatisfied, then it is not successful. It has stalled because (1) you don't want me to continue and (2) no one has asked for me to be replaced.

If we are nowhere, would you like to get somewhere? What would that place look like to you? What do you want me to do to get you there? Uncle Ed 23:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

apparently, discussing this with you is a public problem. check your email. FuelWagon 02:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No reply yet. Do you not want to use email to discuss this? FuelWagon 18:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

1. How about doing this as a Mediation by email? If you agree, please make an RFM at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Uncle Ed 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

mediation by email? Uhm, ok. [[11]]. FuelWagon 21:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestions? I'll look here.

Dear Ed,

I got drawn into a physics article, a topic on which I am at least well enough read to be able to tell when something is clear. The article originally had a request/warning on it indicating that it was too obscure to be helpful. I have managed to get it clear enough that the warning was removed. However, there are places that are so unclear that I can only guess what the Electrical Engineer who wrote the article was trying to say. Actually I suspect that he may be flat out wrong, but since he hasn't made a clear statement I can't be sure.

I e-mailed him a couple weeks ago and he seemed eager to have help getting his writing into comprehensible form. But later when I have asked him questions on the Discussion page he ignores them. The only responsive reply he has made so far was to object to one thing that I had changed, and that was an easy fix, just a word choice thing. I don't want him to feel that I am attacking him personally or something, but I also have been stung so many times (especially in high school) by thinking I was dumb when in fact the writing was incomprehensible that I am not happy leaving something around that looks so problematical for others to get stranded on.

I am moving in the direction of hacking (in the software sense) the most problematical things and seeing whether he will respond when some of his core points are given major changes, but I'm not sure that this is the best approach. Any ideas?P0M 02:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It took me many years to get over that. I finally ran into some really smart and VERY considerate engineers who convinced me that if it's not clear to the educated layman, it's probably - nonsense!

It might be true, but if the writer can't make it clear to ME, that's not MY fault!!

Conversely, as volunteer writers for this project, I suggest that each of us take the responsibility for making our special and important knowledge clear to others. I have enjoyed our relationship in the few short years we have worked together, Patrick. I don't know anything about horse psychology other than what I have been told by people who (1) cared about horses enough to learn how they think, feel and behave and (2) cared enought about the reader to EXPLAIN all this in simple terms.

It's people like you, Patrick, who give me hope for the success of this project. People who care about the topic and the audience. People who are willing to make the effort to share their knowledge with those who want to know.

Thank you! Uncle Ed 03:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I am trying to take the sting out of anything I have to say before I say it. P0M 06:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A third contributor has put up a request for deletion. It may take something like that to get the main writer to find citations -- if he can. I have found some things that appear to be pertinent, but nothing where he said to look. And he is so unclear that I can't be sure that what I've found is really what he is talking about. Meanwhile, I've created my own double-slit apparatus just to have something concrete to work with. P0M 06:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Western Sahara

Thank you for your intervention in the WS page. You requested to meet you in talk. Did you mean in the WS's or in your talk page? Cheers. Daryou 19:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Either place is fine. It's usually quieter here, because I can archive and/or erase comments as I please. It might be too "hot" at talk:Western Sahara, and I don't want to get any sand in my mouth or eyes. So maybe we should talk here? Uncle Ed 20:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I mainly summerized my arguments in the Answers section in WS talk page. I see that Koavf refuses any discussion and don't respect your requests. Daryou 23:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I get a real hostile feeling from that talk page. We've been talking "at" each other in the Edit summaries. This often happens at the beginning of an encounter like this.

Have you been talking with user:Anthere at all yet? Uncle Ed 23:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Every one uses the talk page of WS except of Koavf, and the encounter began longtime before. The conduct of Koavf after 10 October 2005 seems to me very stronge because he continued his activity in WP except in the WS talk page. He refuses the discussion but continues to revert the WS page. Anthere said that she doesn't have time to mediate in this affair [12]. Daryou 23:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll discuss this with the mediation committee get back to you. Uncle Ed 23:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I see that Koavf discussed finally. He said that he was in the UN basement for one day to explain his lack of discussion. I didn't respond to his personal attacks. I'm aware that you don't have enough time for all those disputes. I just wanted to tell you that I proposed either a WP survey or to accept third party proposals made in that talk page by the Minister of War and Nlu. I'm waiting now for Koavf's and Arre's answer. I really need your advice to resolve this dispute, what do you think. Thank you very much and good luck. :-) Daryou 19:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Motivation and Quality

I have been studying ways of getting more and better quality results, in software development, manufacturing, schools (student achivement) and writing encyclopedia articles. My research is not complete, but you can see some of it in:

• Hawthorne effect - studying people affects their performance (very long article, donated this week by a UK professor)
• Pygmalion effect - expectations matter: believeng in people affects their performance

sometimes called

Actually I think that sometimes they also self-identify as M/S - I've left a note on the talk page. Take care. +MATIA ☎ 14:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good point! The frequency of self-identification is important. See you on the talk page. Uncle Ed 14:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I, also, kindly request to check what Greek users had said in the past and avoid guessing (I could expand on that, but it would be better that you'll see it on your own). With my regards, +MATIA ☎ 14:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Guessing is bad. I'm still catching up on my reading about this problem. Uncle Ed 14:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Korean for "Hawaii"

The ko.wikipedia.org article uses "하와이 주" for its title, but "하와이주" (no space as in title) throughout the article. Any idea which would be better to use? ¦ Reisio 02:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A little guidence is needed at

Winter Soldier Investigation WAS 4.250 08:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope you like what I did. It's tricky, writing without bias, because I am a partisan myself. But it helps in matters like this to be open about one's opinions. So here goes.

I believe the US should not have withdrawn from Vietnam, although I am critical of several policies. When I served in the US army (1982-1984 an 1986-1989) I heard a lot of stories from combat veterans: what they did and what they saw. There was plenty of ethical ambiguity ther, to put it mildly.

My personal feeling is that the US had good intentions, but poor strategy and highly ineffective tactics. I still don't think the army has "learned the lessons of the Vietnam War", and that's one reason I dropped out after my second enlistment.

"Anti-war" rhetoric nearly always takes the side of the Communists. It dismisses all criticism of Communist tyranny, omits any mention of Communist atrocities. Do you know how many boat people died trying to escape after the Communists took over all of Vietnam? I suggest reading Doan Van Toai's book, Le Gulag Vietnamien (he wrote it in French, Vietnam being a former French colony). Uncle Ed 14:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

matia again

Check this, and I'll probably should take it to my ArbCom case, since I am the only Greek editor who still tries to discuss and I am confronted by a certain group of users. +MATIA ☎ 14:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You'd better do a Request for Comment first. And if that fails, try the Mediation Committee.

But let's back up a bit. I love ancient Greece, if for no other reason than I'm fascinated by the mythology and stories of heroes: Athena, Zeus, Achilles, Odysseus, and all that. And I get along pretty well with Greek people in New York City.

What kind of confrontation are you getting? What are they not letting you say? Uncle Ed 15:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote Check this I was talking about User:Macedonian adding (sneaky v.?) "Kalogeropoulos, try" to your comment.

Ed,I do believe that you are neutral, but please try to avoid comments like that if you can. If you, and the rest neutral admins read the Macedonia related talk pages thoroughly, you can understand what is happening here. I don't like it when I read, you people in Europe are strange, or something like that. As for Greek assimilation, I think that the WP article has a certain pov that one could dismiss even with comparing it to the equilavent article at the jewish encyclopedia (I've read both but don't remember the links right now).

I'm already involved with an open ArbCom case [[13]], and I would try to parse User:Matia.gr/Evidence if this situation weren't so frustrating. It's times like these that I feel I'm the only greek editor who is so stuborn and haven't, yet, quit WP.

When a greek reads, for example, wikipedia documenting the name negotiations, he sees that Greeks were afraid that the golden larnax with the Vergina Sun would be stolen. Greek POV: the Vergina Sun was discovered (it was unknown before) 1978. In 1992 RoM used it for the country's flag. Greece asked that country (first of all) to use a different name. They stopped using that flag (I repeat Vergina Sun was discovered in 1978) and changed their constitution. What did they add and what did they change? That they don't have territorial pretensions against Greeks. They 've just stated what would be obvious for other countries in Europe and America. +MATIA ☎ 17:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

wow, this is starting to get complicated. let me rest up for now and take a fresh look at it all on Monday. Efharisto! Uncle Ed 00:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you agree with the adding of "User:Kalogeropoulos" etc (see my previous link to your comments by User:Macedonian?

I took the liberty to mark some of the latest PA against me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonians_%28ethnic_group%29&diff=26346940&oldid=26344510

?

Ouranio Toxo, Rainbow Party. Merge and redirect to the older, perhaps? +MATIA ☎ 15:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I was about to put a {{merge}} on that. Uncle Ed 17:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest (since you are the only contributor on Ouranio Toxo), to merge it and then leave a note about it (or mark a section with an appropriate template) on Rainbow Party (pointing out something similar to your 1st edit summary, and having in mind NPOV). The other mention I've seen on WP, was by a user (who may have left WP), and is now removed (I haven't figured out who removed it but you may check it here.) +MATIA ☎ 09:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

and a request

I believe each neutral should read every related talk page but they must start somewhere. I think Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll, Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict and Macedonia_(region)#External_links are 3 good pages. If you know any other pages that are easy (without major refactoring) to read for neutrals please leave me a message (I want to have this list of "suggested reading" somewhere). Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 09:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Investigation copyvio

Order of the Upholders of the Wiki

This Order is awarded to you for your exceptional and distinguished contributions on wikipedia. --Jcw69 21:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed, this page had a copyvio recently resolved (after a year of edit warring over, among other things, some copied text).

The current page has had essentially the same copyvio added again.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't edit the page without resolving the current copyvio first. It's hard enough when anonymous editors re-insert copyvios for thirteen straight months, over and over again. I'd rather not have to fight with a long time wikipedian who knows better.

See the article's edit history and Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Copyvio_and_derivatives.2C_again. There are other charges of copyvios after this section that I haven't looked at and I don't think will affect the resolution. --Duk 14:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand any of that. I mean, I know what a copyvio is (and that it's bad); and I know it's rought when anonymous editors keep re-inserted stupid stuff; and I know that edit wars don't get us anywher. That's not the part I don't understand.

Could you take some time, here in oasis of Uncle Ed's living room, to tell me briefly what the "copy violations" issue is all about? Specifically, are people violating (1) academic standards which prohibit plagiarism, (2) U.S. laws about distributing copyrighted written material, or (3) am I missing the point entirely because it's something else?

I've been with this project nearly 4 years, and I think I understand what's required, what's optional, and what's forbidden. Help me to help you, by giving me a bit more clarity. Uncle Ed 15:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

To make a long story short - last sept ('04) an anon started inserting coptied text from www.bigmagic.com (the text was probably published elsewhere previously). Fast forward over a year of editwars and the copyvio was eventually morphed into a derivative work (the copyvio was never delt with by reverting to the pre copyvio version and a feeble attemp was made to partially re-write it). The page was eventually listed on WP:CP, where it languished for a long time because nobody would touch it, and more edit wars ensued over the copyvio tag staying in place during the listing. In the course of resolving the copyvio there were discussions on the talk page and at wp:cp. I asked for additional input at WP:AN. The copyvio was eventually resolved by reverting to the pre-copyvio version a couple of weeks ago, and in the process trashing over 400 edits and a year of work.

The same copy-vio has been reinserted into the article again and needs to be reverted. I'm planning on doing this if no one else does it first, but am going slowly due to the contentious nature of the page.

Looking at the talk page will show endless bickering, arguing and obfuscation. Whereas the actual problem is very simple; some copied and derived writing. I'm just focusing in the talk page section noted above, there is a lot of other idiotic crap floating around on the talk page at the moment. If you want more detail you'll need to go back and dig up discussions on the archived talk page, wp:cp, wp:an, etc. Should only take a few days :)

I have no interest in the page except resolving the copyvio, I've never edited it otherwise. I spent a lot of time resolving the last copyvio and it's heartbreaking to not be able to keep an anon from re-inserting copyvios over and over and over again. --Duk 16:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the copyvio, but I did see the bickering. I replaced your scary copy-vio notice with a freshly-written, perfectly legal version of the article. I am know the primary author, having supplied 75% of the text of it.

The old "work" still exists, but might have to be re-inserted, one piece at a time, if these pieces are not themselves copyvios.

I would suggest that if any verbatim quotations are inserted, they be placed in quotation marks and be clearly tagged with a web link. Uncle Ed 16:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ed and Duk. May I step into your abode briefly? I'd like to make a few comments and observations, but I promise to keep it simple and concise. 1) I'm the "anon" that has been working with Duk recently to resolve alleged copyvios in two related articles. 2) The paragraphs Ed Poor has rewritten aren't the same paragraphs Duk, DTC and I are concerned with in regard to alleged Copyvio. You are messing with the wrong stuff, Ed  ;) 3) Duk is in error when he describes the present questionable text as "the same copy-vio that has been reinserted." The text that was at issue a few weeks ago was removed, and was never reinserted during the rewrite. Check the records. The "anon" has not reinserted anything over and over again. The present text under review, however, appears to be also derived from the same source materials. Duk and I apparently disagree as to whether this actually constitutes a copyvio. 4) I believe that Duk is sincerely trying to act in the best interest of Wikipedia, and is not politically or otherwise motivated in his actions regarding these articles. I don't share the opinions of certain ... ahem ... passionate recent contributors to the Talk page. 165.247.221.190 18:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

locked only while investigating the "copyvio" accusation

I shall await the results of your investigation. 165.247.221.190 19:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You can stop waiting. I don't have the authority to hold everything up. I must investigate as a peer. Uncle Ed 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, do you guys want some coffee or anything? I might even have some donuts or chips back here somewhere . . .

New copyright fight started by TDC

TDC has started a new revert war with me.

Despite what you said here at the Winter Soldier Investigation site: [14]:

Alrihgt, here is my last plea. Do not remove content just because it appears to be mostly comment. Rather, use your brain, read it thouroughly and edit it. There's a reason why it's called edit this page. Just because one sentence in a paragraph is copied, don't delete the whole thing. Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly states "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed". The only case where you should remove ALL content is if the entire thing is a clear and cut copyright violation. Also, if you take an idea and rewrite it (i.e. put some creative effort into it) then it is no longer a CP. The next time you observe a CP, do not just delete it right away. Read it and see if there's a better way to summarise it and then fix it. Deleting it is a last resort. I'm pretty sure the policy on this is very clear. Remember: don't just go around deleting stuff. That's counter-productive to what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish in the long run (i.e. store as much encyclopedic information as possible). Sasquatcht|c 21:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to change the content as we speak, and he continues to put up the copyright notice. See the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hughes-Ryan_Act&action=history

As he mentions on his talk page he is a wikistalkers:

Beware the wikistalkers. Wiki members who investigate certain users contributions and continually revert them.

He targeted me just because I brought to everybody's attention his aggressive tactics, history of abuse, and frequent bannings in the past.

Please keep in mind TDC's history of being banned from posting and his tactics, all discussed at length on the 3RR site that his friend Duk posted:

165.247.208.115

I'm thinking of moving this section of comments to talk:Winter Soldier Investigation. Uncle Ed 13:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note and the help dealing with Winter Soldier Investigation. According to the talk page there I'm a power hungry jingoistic bully who is conspiring with my buddy TDC to further my evil cause and silence the brave souls trying to educate people with the truth :)

I'd like to believe that the people slinging insults there don't understand;

• why we revert pages to the pre-copyvio version
• the difference between derivative work and presenting the same facts with one's own words
• wikipedia's requirement that fair use be attributed
• etc...

But maybe they do, who knows.

Anyway, re-starting the article is a good idea. --Duk 01:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand the 3 bullet points above. And thanks for your support on the re-start. I won't be touching it again till Monday. I'm tired. Uncle Ed 01:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

What about the newest attack of TDC?Travb 02:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it's going to Mediation. If so, I obviously will not be the Mediator. I wonder who will be appointed? (I'm hoping Anthere will come out of retirement for this one.) Uncle Ed 17:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

From Macedonian

Thanks Uncle Ed. Please see comments on my talk page. Also, please use that talk page for any further communication. Take care, Macedonian 02:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Afd nominations

I know you know better, so I won't insult you with the boilerplate I've been using when new users do this, but could you please at least put your reasons for deletion in an afd subpage after tagging the article? People are getting confused when all they have to go on is "I found this article with an afd tag on it". See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistical process control. —Cryptic (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Can I echo that remark? I was going to close the AfD on Statistical process control as a speedy keep, even though I agree that the article stinks, except for the first paragraph which seems to contain enough to make a decent stub. However, I decided to contact you first; perhaps you'd like to explain what happened? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both. Perhaps turning it into a stub would be better than deleting it. Is there a template for indicating the last major version? I'd like to stubify it, but keep a prominent link to the mid-October "long and mostly useless" version for mining purposes. Uncle Ed 13:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No such template exists as far as I know, so I made something up myself. By the way, I glanced over Six Sigma and Total Quality Management and I can understand that you want all this to be annihilated from this planet, or at least from Wikipedia. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm just frustrated by the low quality of these articles about quality. Uncle Ed 20:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Winter Soldier Investigation

In case I forgot to say this: Thank you for your work on mediating the Winter Soldier Investigation

Wikipedia Bounty Board

Ed,

I've been thinking for a while about starting a Wikipedia:Bounty Board, where people put up monetary bounties for articles to become featured, but where the money all goes to the Wikimedia Foundation if the conditions are met. I have a draft at User:Quadell/bounty.

It seems to me that the positives would be that it would encourage donations and encourage the creation of featured articles, and it would fill a gap - that people tend to look for a psychological "reward" when they've worked hard for Wikipedia. But my questions are: 1, Do you think there are any legal problems with this? 2, Do you think this goes against the Wiki philosophy? And 3, Do you see any other problems? (I'm asking several long-term and knowlegeable Wikipedian about this.)

Thanks for your input, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

A personal thank you from a fellow contributor would do just as well. Uncle Ed 18:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:"Fix Crappy Prose" Challenge

I'm not sure what the point of this is. Is it some sort of variant on the cleanup tags, inviting others to come and "fix" what you see as "crappy prose"? Or something else that I'm too obtuse to recognize? 'cause I'm not exactly sure what is so "crappy" about the prose in List of Governors of Michigan. I'm sure it could be improved, but I don't see anything particularly "crappy" about the prose there. A little boring perhaps, but after all it is a LIST by golly. I'll grant I may be wee bit over-sensitive about it, since I contributed a lot to that article. Cheers, older≠wiser (writing from work).

Ya gotta read the mailing list. Uncle Ed 21:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize it was now necessary to read the mailing list to understand things on Wikipedia. I always thought that was just an optional adjunct. So for somone who doesn't read the mailing list anymore, what is this about? older≠wiser 01:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Should not be housekeeping categories such as this one be placed on talk pages? Brona 00:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

check your email

FuelWagon 19:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

mentioned your name on User_talk:TDC yesterday, and User_talk:Sasquatch today

Out of courtesy, wanted to tell you that I mentioned your name twice:

First:

"Your friends, Duk, 172, SEWilco, and Uncle Ed, who shadow you from site to site agressively reverting text, hardly are partial enough to decide this...Lets see what Sasquatch, the assigned moderator decides"

Found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TDC#Winter_Soldier_Edits

Second time:

Sasquatch wrote:

I'd probably be a shitty moderator for this situation as I'm already involved.

I responded:

"How so? Do you mean in that you are editing the article now too? Like Ed poor? (Can I mention his name here without alerting him?)... I am busy talking to Ed poor now on the talk page...."

Found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sasquatch#So_now_what.3F

Third time (older):

You are also mentioned prominently on the Requests_for_mediation:

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

I figure you know this already.

Damn this is a lot of work, being courteous to people and mentioning when you mention them--it is easier not to say anyones name.

You're darn right it's a lot of work. I used to think telling the truth was enough. I found out the hard way that courtesy is at least half of it. Thanks for the alerts! Uncle Ed 23:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

'Sup Eduardo

I saw your comment on the thing page requesting IRC. Ive been avoiding IRC like the Black Flux for a while, and IAC been limiting my online time. But email is fine - what's up? -St|eve 03:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well in case you didn't notice Raul has put your name up for RFA confirmation. I wanted to know how you felt about that and (depending on that) make a comment or two that I think you'd probably like to hear. Uncle Ed 13:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

NYC meetup

There was a meetup last December: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC1. There was also a pre-meetup meetup in November; information on that and the planning of the December event are here: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC.

For a while, someone had a meetup.com group for NYC Wikipedians. I don't know whether any face-to-face gatherings actually occurred through that group. It was discontinued when meetup.com started charging, and nobody valued the group enough to pay anything to preserve it.

If someone else does the work of organizing something, I'd be interested in attending (even if there are *gasp, shudder* "Moonies" there). I have both of the NYC meetup pages above watchlisted, hoping that anyone who set something up would mention it there. Although I think a meetup is a great idea, I'm afraid that I'm not williing to lift a finger to make it happen, at least not for the next several weeks. JamesMLane 22:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, you make us sound like roaches. What makes you gasp and shudder like that? Where'd you learn to refer to us like - oh, wait, that was an exact quote of me on one of the politics pages.... ;-) Carlton Fisk or Sheldon Rampton or Sherwood Forest?

Yeah, by the time I found out about the December meeting (where Anthere and Angela both were there!) I had already committed to something else. Boo! Boo! The Princess Bride)

This idea of everything having to be "free" can be taken to far. TANSTAAFL, you know. Well, at least someone cared enough to get Boston for WikiMania. Uncle Ed 23:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Conditional apology granted

Per your Admin-based instructions at Talk: Stolen Honor, I have placed a conditional apology to JML there - I am however, asking that you be more specific with your contention, so I can be more specific with my "tak[ing] it back". [15] Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Scrupulous avoidance of problem verbiage

Please review this edit of mine and tell me if you have any problems with it. Thank you. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's polite enough, but I disagree with too much of it to approve of labeling each point as a "fact". How about just using a star (*) for each bullet point? Uncle Ed 14:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

James is an attorney. I presented that argument to him in the classic IRAC model:

• ISSUE
• RULE
• Apply the rule to the FACTS
• CONCLUSION(s)

When evaulating evidence a "fact" is a piece of information, which, when presented, is presumed to be true unless overcome with superior evidence.

"In law, a fact is a statement which is found to be true by a tryer of fact, sometimes a jury, but often the court (the judge or judges) after hearing evidence."

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 15:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Unification Church on de:

I assume from the article histories that you mostly abstain from major involvements in the articles, but nevertheless let me articulate this call for help. de:Vereinigungskirche is a mess. Serious utter mess. Apologetics and apostats reverting each other, sometimes "cult-speciallists" inserting juicy stories. Our current "pro"-reverter prefers to cut'n'paste directly from the official German website of the church. Our most active "contra"-reverter tells sort-of his personal story. No neutral and knowledgeable volunteer in sight.

If you can think of anybody able to edit in German and willing to try a NPOV-treatment, please encourage him to give the German Wikipedia a visit.

Pjacobi 15:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I left a note there in English. Maybe user:Eloquence or User:maveric149 could help. Uncle Ed 15:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia mediation

Hey Ed. WP:RFM lists you as the mediator for the Macedonia dispute. As such, I was wondering if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Macedonians_.28ethnic_group.29 and see if you want to protect it. It seems an edit war has broken out there. It'd be great if you could try to talk to those guys. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 22:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Locked, reverted to 14 Oct. Read them the riot act. I'll let 'em stew over the weekend. Uncle Ed 01:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. But it looks like you forgot to do the actual protection. :) I just did. Dmcdevit·t 04:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No Original Research

Please got to Talk:John Kerry and read this edit in context there. Your comments there about this issue would be appreciated. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Denar

Hi Ed, someone keeps moving the article Macedonian denar to FYROM denar or something else. Macedonian denar is the name used worldwide by everyone, its the currency's official name. Also, he is not discussing it on the talk page. Could you please lock the page, because this edit war is not ending. Thank you. REX 12:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Delete-turds?

Hi Ed. Does Template:Delete-turds serve any purpose? If not, it seems it should be deleted. Cheers!  BDAbramson ^talk 15:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group)

Please check my newest post here [[16]]. This is what I could find only on one page. I am sure there are many others. But, doesn't this proove that the Macedonian ethnicity was already formed (or at least started to getting formed) much, much before Tito got on power in 1945th? Cheers... Macedonian^(talk) 00:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Now you're getting somewhere. I'd like you to continue your research into the history of Macedonian ethnicity in two ways. (1) The "orginal" (Greek) ethnic/national group of ancient Makedonians (who spelled their words with Greek letters like Π). (2) The modern ethnic/national group residing mainly in FYROM (many of whom use Cyrillic letters). Uncle Ed 15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC against Benjamin Gatti

Hi, Uncle Ed,

I don't want to add to your stress, but since Ben is spreading it around already you probably should know that Woohookitty and Katefan0 are drafting an RfC against Ben. It isn't finished yet, yet Ben has already "responded" and filed two RfCs of his own. The draft is at [17] - I'm not sure if we should do anything until it is written and dated. Simesa 04:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if they are using the preposition against then this is really the same as a RFArb - which is improper. If they have objections to his conduct at Wikipedia, they should be asking the community for comments about his conduct. (And, no, I'm not being pedantic about this. There's a world of difference between the two words.) 15:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, for your support of fair process. If someone has a beef, and they are fair, I'll be at the debate. BIO, Benjamin Gatti

Block Warning

Rex, you're wasting everybody's time with all this "rules-lawyering". I think I should supsend your editing priviliges for a few days. Would that be okay with you? Take a little time off and try to remember what you came here for in the first place?

We are looking for editors who can help us make good articles. You're not helping with the John Kerry articles. Either submit a workable plan for how you intend to collaborate with the rest of us, or I'm going to start taking steps. Uncle Ed 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, are you joshing? On what grounds are you going to block me? Because you think you should? Please list the transgressions you contend I have commited that give you grounds to block me.

Have you been reading Talk:John Kerry? How can you say there is no plan? Virtually every suggestion I make there is attacked by Kizzle, JameMLane and Gamaliel. Regarding "We are looking for editors..." who is the "we" you refer to? Are you asserting that you have a side agreement with those three?

Ed, this is the 2nd time you have threatened me without valid grounds. I expect that if you follow through on your unfounded threats, I feel I may be forced to take you to ArbComm. Is that what you want?

As to this statement of yours: "You're not helping with the John Kerry articles"; this is your opinion and you are welcome to it, but I venture to say that I have made more viable edits at John Kerry than you. Why don't you show me even ONE viable edit that YOU'VE made to John Kerry recently?

Also, please show me where your accusation of "rules-lawyering" is in any wiki guideline, etc., as-being prohibited - along with an official (not your personal view) statement as to what "rules-lawyering" is, ok?

Ed, I frankly feel that you are bullying me and wrongly so.

Lastly, I find this statement of yours "you're wasting everybody's time" to be so utterly false, one-sided and cruel, that I question your impartiality. I suggest you need to recuse yourself from any admin duties addressing me.

You've really hurt my feelings here - I think you are out of line.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The above is a typical example of rules-lawyering, and it even contains a threat, an accusation and an insult.

It's also a waste of time because it contains not one word about how you plan to collaborate with other Wikipedians on writing informative and unbiased articles.

You see, you're proving my point. But since I'm a fair guy, I had to give you one more chance. Next stop: RFC. Uncle Ed 02:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I intended no insult, threat or accusation, nor do I feel my comments are those things. And since it appears that you do think that, it's probably best that you and I do not chat in the future -as I do not want my comments to offend or upset you. For this reason, if I do dialog with you, it will be at an absolute minimum, to avoid conflict. Please do not be offended if, after this edit, it appears I am avoiding you, I am not. Rather, I am trying to avoid trouble and it since it seems that my dialogs with you tend to stir that up, I feel it's best if we don't talk much. Regards,

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Creation-evolution poll

I've deleted Creation-evolution poll as a re-creation of a deleted article. See Talk:Creation-evolution poll and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolution_poll. Friday (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Your recreation of this article was unjustified and defied the community consensus. I'm reporting the action to the administartor's noticeboard. Joshuaschroeder 13:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The report is lodged here. Joshuaschroeder 13:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No my re-creation of the article was justified, because it fixed two of your objections. Moreover, a "vote" is not the same as consensus. And Jimbo will support me on this: we can't just vote to suppress information that some POV-pusher wants to censor! Uncle Ed 20:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I gotta say, I continue to be confused by your edits on this subject. Articles for individual polls?!? Maybe Category talk:Evolution polls is the right place to discuss this. I've heard you say (on more than one occasion) how much you advocate NPOV, but this sort of thing looks decidedly non-neutral. I'm not questioning your intent; I'm trying to caution you on how this might look to other editors. Friday (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but get this: Joshua said it's okay! Can you believe that?! We've been dialoguing like crazy for the last day and a half, and I think we're starting to work it out: without blocks, warnings, RFC or arbcom. It's a miracle.

Just check out the contribs of each of us on talk pages, but don't pinch me, because if it's a dream I don't want to wake up. Uncle Ed 01:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Survey vote

Hi EP. I'll be glad to see you casting your vote at this survey; Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote. I hope it's time to find a solution to a longstanding wikipedia conflict. I've avoided it since a long time now but as the warriors from both sides finally decided to solve it by a vote, than it's a great opportunity. Thanks in advance. -- Svest 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Mediation

I have already responded to your vote. I do not believe I am a "high-powered sysop", and I have explained on my vote page. Thank you voting, it was getting quite over there for too long :-).Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 03:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group)

Ed, I see that Macedonians (ethnic group) has been locked yet again. I suggest that it might be an idea to lay down some ground rules for resolving this dispute. In particular, I think that the debate over whether to call them Macedonians or Macedonian Slavs should be ended. I see no point in continuing this particular argument, as our policy statement at Wikipedia:Naming conflict is quite clear on the subject. I suggest that we should also give User:Theathenae a warning for revert warring and POV-pushing, both on this and other articles. -- ChrisO 14:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

A question for ChrisO and Ed Poor: What about the users of the other side? +MATIA ☎ 15:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think either side has behaved particularly well. However, if you look at the recent edit history of Macedonians (ethnic group), you will see that other users have at least sought to reach compromise solutions but Theathenae has repeatedly reverted the article. He certainly broke the 3 revert rule on 27 October and should have been blocked for that, and he has consistently refused to let go of the Macedonians / Macedonian Slavs issue. -- ChrisO 15:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

ChrisO I'm involved with Macedonia related articles at least since early August, and I'm very well aware of what is happening. I'm more worried about the one night consensus (we almost had the same the previous days at Talk:Arvanitic language), than the not-wp:civ behaviour of all parties, and I've tried in the past to talk with FlavSavr, after his disapointment of the June poll. I'd like both sides (greek and RoM) to be presented properly at WP articles, and while you have noticed problems regarding RoM side, you may have not noticed problems regarding the Greek side. However I must also state that I agree with your latest edits on the (Main) namespace and there's an open ArbCom case that I'm involved that you might find interesting. +MATIA ☎ 16:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I simply do not understand why we should accept the coup d'état pulled off overnight on Macedonian Slavs, as User:Matia.gr correctly points out, by a group of users in secret collaboration with an administrator who arbitrarily moved and locked the article with complete disregard for the last poll results and without a hint of consensus on the relevant talk page. The silence of "neutral" administrators on this issue has been truly deafening.--Theathenae 09:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be accepted because the vast majority of editors support it and becausi it is in line with Wikipedia:Naming conflict. As far as I can see, those rules apply until an good reason is found why this case should be treated as an exception. Why should it be treated as an exception, Theathenae? Rex^(talk) 12:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I can't speak for Ed, but I agree with his action for three main reasons. First, the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy did not exist at the time of the naming poll. With a change (or rather, a creation) of a guiding policy the poll results are effectively invalidated, as the participants were operating without any clear guidelines. Second, the issue of whether or not we follow the WP:NPOV policy is not a matter for debate or polls; it's one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies. The naming conflict policy is merely NPOV applied to disputed names.

Third, and I'm sorry to have to say this, it was clear that many editors on both sides of the dispute - including yourself - were not interested in following the NPOV policy. The comments made in the poll and the continuing dispute since then have made that very clear. I concluded, and I'm sure Ed did too, that there was little chance of obtaining consensus from two groups of rival nationalists. If this solution was imposed, it was only because neither side wanted to compromise or follow Wikipedia's rules. That's not a situation that administrators can tolerate indefinitely. Ed and I aren't partisans in the Greek-Macedonian conflict, but we do have a responsibility to defend and where necessary enforce Wikipedia's basic policies. -- ChrisO 01:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ed Poor and FuelWagon

Ed, I find it hard to comprehend how in the course about two weeks, you could make roughly 650 edits to wikipedia, yet would not be able to find the time to answer half a dozen questions from the first round of mediation. The mediator has withdrawn due to a lack of response by you. FuelWagon 21:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Micronation Infobox

An info box template has recently been created by myself and O^O for use in Wikipedia articles about micronations and other unrecognised entities, to address longstanding concerns and edit wars that have resulted from the inappropriate use of the standard country infobox in these types of articles.

This new info box has so far been successfully incorporated into the following articles: Sealand, Republic of Rose Island, Independent State of Aramoana, Empire of Atlantium, Avram and Province of Bumbunga, and it is intended to incorporate it into most of the other articles in the micronation category in due course.

However, one editor, Samboy has suggested that the micronation infobox should be excluded from Empire of Atlantium on the grounds that the article is "not notable" and because only 22% of micronation articles in Wikipedia currently have the info box (ie because the info box project is not yet complete).

As someone who has contributed to similar discussions in the past, I thought this might interest you. I have instituted a poll on this subject here, and invite you to review it if you are so inclined.

Thanks. --Gene_poole 06:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My personal issue with Gene Poole's action is that there is a conflict of interest here. One of the first micronations he added this infobox to is, conveniently enough, his own micronation. And, while he sets up a poll about whether we should add the template to the article, he did not mention the poll in WP:RFC, which is the best way to make the poll visible to people who have never been involved in the issue. Instead, he posts the existence of the poll on the user pages of a number of users who he feels are symphathetic to his micronation. User:Tony Sidaway has felt that this kind of campaigning is dishonest. Samboy 07:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

As long as micronations and real countries have distinct taxoboxes, what's the problem? Many people create "micronations" as an attention-getter, a hobby, a joke.

There's always going to be a fuzzy boundary between "real countries"; tiny principalities or enclaves / exclaves like Monaco or Cabinda; and joke / stunt / PR things like declaring a 20 x 60 meter platfrom a "nation".

Let's not fight about this. Just describe what people outside of Wikipedia are doing and saying. Try to get above the whole thing and give teh reader's the bird's-eye view. Uncle Ed 14:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert without talk

Since on the Unguided evolution page the person who you reverted to last agreed to my changes, can you change it back or at the very least add to the talkpage? Joshuaschroeder 02:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll add to the talk page. And please see the diff: I've added some interesting points to the article. (It will take me about 10 minutes to read the talk and respond, so please don't be hasty.)

Nice work on Articles_related_to_the_creation-evolution_controversy, by the way. Last time I saw it, it was a fairly comprehensive list. Uncle Ed 02:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon

I'm concerned about this as well. Perhaps you could e-mail me. Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ed Poor and FuelWagon would have solved any dispute you might have had, Ed Poor. But apparently you don't have time for that. But you do appear to have an abundance of time for, what did you say to me on the SlimVirgin RfC.... oh, yes, how could I forget, "building a case" against an editor who is an unpaid volunteer. FuelWagon 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there any hope that this Wikipedian can be taught to make useful contributions to the project AND avoid hurting other contributors' feelings with personal remarks, "stalking" behavior, and so on?

Funny, I thought I was making useful contributions to the project. As to hurting other contributers' feelings with personal remarks, if I have violated NPA, please, Ed, by all means, point them out. And whose feelings have been hurt, Ed? I know of no one. Am I to be a mind reader? "Stalking", ah, yes, the policy violation for admins who can't find proof of any other violation. It's one of those wonderful policies that is completely subjective and totally a matter of the subjective interpretation of whoever is making the accusation. Interesting that it is impossible for anyone to see that SlimVirgin stalked me to the Bensaccount RfC months ago. And yet, Ed Poor who appears to have a dispute about me "stalking" someone, rather than attempt to resolve that dispute on my talk page with me, instead, addresses his concern to his good buddy, Jayjg. Tell me, Ed Poor, and Jayjg, doesn't wikipedia policy say something about if you have a dispute that you try to resolve teh issue with the editor in question? FuelWagon 01:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid personal remarks. Uncle Ed 20:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Investigation RFC

If you are interested Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation#RFC on Winter Soldier Investigation TDC 18:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

was wiki down?

They said wikipedia was down. Uncle Ed 22:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you are on my watchlist and you looked (to me) like you 're talking to yourself... yes it seemed that for 10 or 20 minutes the servers were "busy". Take care! +MATIA ☎ 23:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for watching over me. :-) Uncle Ed 14:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL I just had your talk page on my list, since the time I asked you some questions (and then you answered them of course). I use it as a bookmarks file or a reminder mostly. I think we both laughed with my (not really a) baby-sitting (just kidding!).

+MATIA ☎ 15:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Rejecting ID

I think the question of what proportion of scientists reject ID is impossible to answer. I'd say (based on my experience) most scientists - most biologists even - don't know what ID is. Even people who do know have a hard time pinning down all the arguments. On one hand, if the Wedge strategy is to be believed, the underlying strategy is the rejection of naturalistic or materialistic science. Very few scientists would be willing to accept that idea in their professional capacity (while I believe in God I compartmentalise that from my science; I might need a miracle to get some work done in the time I have left after editing Wikipedia all day, but I wouldn't include that in the timeline I am laying out for a project). I suspect (though I cannot say for certain) that almost all scientists will continue to use naturalistic explanations in their science - even Behe in his biochemical work. I can't imagine non-naturalistic science. If you asked scientists whether they accept or reject the idea that you can incorporate the supernatural into working science an overwhelming proportion would reject the idea.

On the other hand, one could look at ID as the "gaps" explanation - that there are things that cannot be explained, and that inexplicable compexity requires "external" explanations. My guess is that you would get a lot more support for the first half of that statement than for the second. In addition,

One criticism of ID is that it is almost impossible to reject (experimentally) because it fails to make testable predictions. Assuming that this is the case (I realise there are people who argue otherwise), I would have a hard time "rejecting" ID from a scientific perspective. I can reject Dembski's filter because (as he has outlined it in his first book) it would find design in purely naturalistic phenomena (like, to use Eugenie Scott's example, a fairy circle). I can reject Behe's mousetrap analogy (because someone, I can't remember who, has shown that a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex), but IC seems impossible to reject as long as there is any unexplained complexity.

I need to stop now before I spend the whole day on this. In a nutshell, I would guess that most scientists don't know enough about ID to reject it - even evolutionary biologists. On the other hand, while Darwin's basic idea of descent with modification is at the base of all biological science, ID neither endorses nor rejects the idea of common ancestry. My undergraduate botany professor and elder of the Anglican church would, from what he has said in the past, be sympathetic to the idea of God playing a role in evolution and willing to consider "God in the gaps", but as a very rigid and methodical scientist would probably reject ID as a scientific hypothesis. On the other hand, there are probably sloppy scientists who would be hard-pressed to reject ID on methodical grounds (since their own hypotheses suffer the same lack of falsifiability) who would reject ID on political grounds.

Sorry if this was not very helpful. Guettarda 19:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Short version

Most scientists probably don't know enough about ID to formulate an opinion. Guettarda 19:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I understood the long version, too. Thanks! Uncle Ed 19:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Granted, but it's a long ramble, and I realised after I was done that I could have answered your question in one line. Actually, three words would have done - I don't know :-) - Guettarda 19:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Page deletion

I page which is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war (of which you are listed as a member) is up for deletion. It is The Left and Opposition to War, you can see its entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Left and Opposition to War. It would be helpfull if you could add your opinion.--JK the unwise 12:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor

Against my better judgement, but out of courtesy, which I promised to Duk before, I wanted to mention that I mentioned your name again on my talk page. Travb 02:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ivory Coast

As you have several postings to the talk page on the issue, I thought you might be interested in the WP:RM on Côte d'Ivoire see Talk:Côte d'Ivoire.

Also do you know where the archive page is for the talk page? Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where the archive page is, but we can probabaly make a new one from the history.

I also think the English Wikipedia should put the article at Ivory Coast, because that is what people call Cote d'Ivoire when speaking English. I don't care what the current dictator wants me to call his country; it's my damn language! Uncle Ed 14:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not "your dmn language"... well, ok, it is in that it's what you speak, but you do not own the language... The US State dept uses Cote d'Ivoire, and you are unlikely to win against consensus on this one at any rate... btw a "rollback" is not quite the same as a "revert"; "rollback" is something only admins can do... (undo changes with a single click of a button) whereas a "revert" means repeatedly going back to the same contested intention, even if the words are slightly different... I have not really counted your reverts, but know it's too many... Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 19:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with your reasons for wanting to thwart Wikipedia policy on the name of Ivory Coast. Moreover, your use of the term "consensus" seems disingenous to me. A "friendly" attempt to lie does not endear you to me. Uncle Ed 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added in some more info on the ridiculously named Talk:Cote d'Ivoire page. I checked a massive range of sources from Time to the Times of London, ABC News to the SABC, the State Department to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Bloomberg to you name it. And guess what? Not one uses Cote d'Ivoire exclusively. Many however use Ivory Coast exclusively. Even Codex's endlessly quoted US State Department uses both. So much for his case! What is it about some people's desire to make up false claims about English usage of a name, and then to insist on the basis of a deliberate falsehood that the normal MoS rules shouldn't apply to an article he is 'guarding?? Mindboggling! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note Ed. You might be interested in reading this from the Vatican: [18]. Good luck with your event. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Palestine series

This page you've created is nominated for deletion on WP:MFD. I think your comment is needed in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Palestine series. CG 18:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've noticed on the Desolation Row page' you've asked for American Pie to be "done"- there's nothing to be "done" it's about the death of Buddy Holly, and the author's "Rage" concerning Bobby Vee being brought in to sing with The Crickets - listen carefully, all will be revealed Lion King 03:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 (talk · contribs) vs John Kerry

If you wouldn't mind intervening for a moment, he certianly can't claim you're part of any ' liberal editors gang ', and this page could use some resolution.. ..seeing as how you've spoken to him in the past, thnx--152.163.100.6 05:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Heya!

Nice to meet you yesterday. On the one topic I promised photographic evidence! ;-)

I used google images, and found this one from early on at least: [19].

Also, here's satelite observations of _land_ ice flow. [20].

Non sequitur: "The results also suggest climate warming can rapidly lead to rises in sea level."

Unlike the rest of the article, which was scientific, this sentence was unrelated to everything else. There was not a single supporting sentence or figure. (A typical example of politically correct language infesting an otherwise adequate science report.) Uncle Ed 15:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

And apologies for that one. I should know better than to debate topics with smart people without either having a net connection on hand, or without taking the time to memorise a subject. ^^;;

Besides that one hitch, 'twas great fun talking with you. :-)

-- Kim Bruning 14:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Coastal Ivôry

(or whatever we eventually decide to call it)

You moved this page from Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast on the 14th, and added a note explaining what was being voted on in the context of that move to the top. Unfortunately, when the page was moved back, no-one corrected the note for the new situation, so it's been up there for three days to confuse people, and as a result a user points out at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#Neutral (point 2) that half the people there have apparently been voting to do exactly the opposite of what they meant. (aaargh!) To clear up the confusion I've edited the section titles to be in line with what people were voting underneath them (so Support - have the article at Ivory Coast and Oppose - have the article at Côte d'Ivoire.)

Could you have a look at the note you added at the top of the vote, and make it make sense for the current situation? I would do something about it, but it's 1.45am and I'm a bit too tired to think straight, so I fear I'd just make it even worse. Thanks, Shimgray | talk | 01:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I was about to make the same request. If you look at the Neutral vote section, you will see why. Cheers. Moriori 01:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is poor form for an administrator to:

1. Move the page in the middle of a vote, confusing the message at the top of the page and the basis of the vote
2. Lock the page behind you
3. All while being an interested party in the outcome of the vote.

Wizzy…☎ 06:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed, please explain about the protection at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#Policy vs. move. — Jeandré, 2005-11-17t21:03z

I'll stay out of the row about the current move. But the whole saga shows the weakness of the current system. The MoS rules are mandatory, yet most of the C d'I votes are based on either complete ignorance of MoS rules, insistence of 'to tell with them. We'll do what we want', French speakers determined to fight to defend a French name (frequently by making nutty claims such as that everyone used C d'I when they demonstably don't, etc). Then we get the 'well I like this one brigade. Encylopædias simply cannot operate the that. Every encyclopædia has its own MoS and it has to be followed. Editors in Brittanica cannot simply decide well I want to write this my way. The MoS doesn't apply to it. Editors would just sweep in and rewrite it and if they complained they'd get the sack.

WP really needs to start taking its MoS seriously. Anything that is mandatory has to be a must be obeyed rule that is not voted on but followed. People can work to change the MoS if they wish. But if the MoS says 'x' then 'x' it is. So if they say 'don't write such and such' or 'follow x rule' then anything that doesn't follow those rules is overturned, not simply voted on. I've come across a couple of pages where votes decided to follow different policies to the MoS meaning that one may have 99 articles following one rule, and 1 following its own 'made up as you go alone'.

We need to have (1) a strict understanding that mandatory means mandatory and so means no deviation. User talk:Jtdirl 07:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No way is MOS mandatory. It is only a guideline, and it is meant to be adaptable to different articles. Try reading the very first paragraph of WP:MOS. If our style manual was rigid, we would e faced with a lot of problems with the myriad of exceptions to all those language rules. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

We should follow the MOS, unless there is a consensus that it doesn't apply in a certain case. But then we should modify the MOS. And that's all I'm going to say about this. Uncle Ed 21:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Protecting Côte d'Ivoire

Ed, I would like to add my displeasure of your actions at Côte d'Ivoire. Another user proposed moving it to Ivory Coast and made some very compelling arguments; however, it seems unlikely that there will be consensus to move it; in fact, the majority are against moving it (disclaimer: I voted to oppose the move as well). You then proceed to move it to Ivory Coast which is highly questionable, given the considerable opposition to this move. When it was (appropriately, in my opinion) moved back, you again moved it and protected it against moves. This is completely inappropriate: as you should know, an administrator should not protect pages when he is involved in a dispute over them. If you noticed a move war on an article you hadn't previously edited, protection would be appropriate, but to move a page to your preferred version and then protect it is an abuse of administrative powers, I believe. Especially since you initiated the moves. What makes this an especially bad decision is that the requested move discussion is still in progress; the move interfered with the move notices and confused several participants. Please don't protect articles you've had previous involvement in, especially in a dispute directly related to the protection, and please don't move articles while they are still in discussion at WP:RM. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What you're saying is that you want Wikipedia to be a democracy, rather than a project which applies mutually-agreed principles. You are in effect asserting the right of people who disagree with the community, to enter the community and flout its principles, provided there are enough of them to gang up and do so.

You say you are displeased with my bad decision, that it was inappropriate and an abuse of powers. All of these things could be true, if Wikipedia were an experiment in democracy. But it is not. It's a project to make a free encyclopedia. Please learn the difference, and stop lecturing me about your political ideals.

Thank you.

Ed Poor, one of Wikipedia's most experienced administrators. 15:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I had intended not to comment on this any further, but your comment about "getting someone to stop" Knowledge Seeker made me want to speak briefly in his defense here. I agree with you, by the way, that he should have left this note only on your talk page and not at the article page--that debate's messy, ugly, and uncivil enough already--but I hope you do understand why a sudden, nonconsensus move in the middle of a Requested Move discussion would end up spilling over onto the Talk Page.

I completely share KS's concerns with your actions. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, I suspect you are well aware that Wikipedia:Protection policy unambiguously prohibits administrators from putting locks on pages that they are currently edit warring over: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." If you feel that an exception to the Wikipedia:Requested moves policy (that 60% consensus should be reached in favor of a move before the page could be moved) needed to be made in favor of MoS guidelines, it seems to me that the appropriate action was to call in a neutral administrator.

Anyway, no harm done--the move was reverted and the page unlocked, and hopefully we can now get on to finishing off this vote. Despite current frustrations I hope we'll edit happily together in the future; you're a heck of an editor whose work I generally quite admire. Best wishes! --Dvyost 17:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Ed. First, regarding your comments to me at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire/Archive1, I'm sorry; I didn't mean to upset you. The page you linked to (Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks) doesn't seem to be very applicable: it criticizes "opinions about other contributors as people"; I make no judgment about you as a person, but rather criticize your actions. I believe that criticism of others' actions may be very appropriate, especially when it involves use or misuse of administrative powers. It is precisely because you are one of Wikipedia's most experience administrators that I was disappointed in your actions; had you been a newly elected administrator it would have been more understandable, but I feel that someone with your experience should not be deliberately violating well-established policies designed to prevent administrators from using their powers to gain advantages in disputes. I am glad, though, that you said you would "have to ask someone to stop [me]" rather than threaten to block me yourself; a controversial block such as this should certainly be carried out by a disinterested administrator, as I'm sure you know. Regarding your points above: no, I don't believe I mentioned anything about a democracy. In fact, if you reread my comments, while I consider your moving the page against consensus "questionable", it was your move war and protection, especially during an active move request, that concerned me. I'm not certain I understand your comments about community: I don't understand why the new users who enter and disagree with the older users aren't part of the community. Reverting and protecting a page over which you are involved in a dispute has nothing to do with democracy, and I'm uncertain why you keep bringing that up. Rather, it violates a well-established policy. Nor is using administrative powers to gain an advantage in a dispute relevant to building a better encyclopedia. In my opinion, one can play by the rules and still improve Wikipedia. We all have ideas about what would make Wikipedia better, and they don't always coincide exactly. Please note that I have no dispute with you; you are a valuable editor here and we share the same goals: to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia we can. I don't intend to pursue arbitration against you or anything—I would expect others to point out to me if they thought I was misusing my powers, and I think you should expect others to do the same to you (as many have in this case). You may respond if you wish; I have made the points I wanted to about proper uses of administrative powers. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I'd be interested to hear your response to my comments in a new section on Talk:Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 16:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POV fork

As the expert on WP:NPOV, your opinion on Wikipedia:POV fork is welcome. How you think articles should be structured in an NPOV way, how should be avoided, and so on. Of particular interest is whether it applies to yourself or whether you, as a self-appointed expert, get special exemption from it. — Dunc|☺ 16:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles and subarticles: "As Wikipedia articles grow, they often need to be segmented, or branched, into manageable parts. This is an accepted premise for forking an article, and the nature of that split more often depends upon consensus" [21]

I think this should apply equally to me and to others. There is little or no value to the Wikipedia gained by referring to segmentation and branching as "illegal", in view of the above. Wouldn't you agree? Uncle Ed 18:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it, Ed. But you seem to have misunderstood what a POV fork means. I'm sure you know already, being *the* No. 1 self-appointed expert and whatnot. Forking should not frowned upon if you can come up with some well-researched and present it in an NPOV way. But POV-pushing forks intended to push a particular viewpoint, especially a fringe one, are the worst. It gets worse when the forker is clueless about the subject, don't you think? How do you think we should deal with such POV-pushers? — Dunc|☺ 21:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that there is all the difference in the world between segmenting/branching existing content to begin a new article and beginning a new article with initial content determined solely by the person who decided to initiate a new article. The former shows good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Workshop. Fred Bauder 20:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word American

I know some time has already passed, but I couldnt let this pass on blank clouds, since it got me so stunned; is it true that school in US teaches that America is 2 different continents??LtDoc 18:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Try Continent. It's amazing the wealth of information that can be found in Wikjipedia.Moriori 20:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this a follow-up from today's IRC session? :-)

I am a U.S. citizen from birth, and have grew up in the Northeast (NJ and Massachusetts). I was taught as "common knowledge" that the continents are:

1. North America
2. South America
3. Europe
4. Africa
5. Asia
6. Australia
7. Antarctica

I was told that the boundary between Europe and Asia was not clearly agreed-upon, and I learned the word "Eurasia".

Later in life, I became aware of something called "Latin America" which I vaguely understood to be the parts of the "Americas" in which Spanish or Portugese were spoken. This was even less clear. I realized there would have to be some overlap, if Mexico was in North America and Latin America. But this also made me wonder what sort of region Latin America was; it didn't seem to fit into the "7 continents" pattern listed above.

Does this satisfy your curiosity? Are you still "stunned"? Uncle Ed 20:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Flaggerbasted, or however you write that in english. To me, "common knowledge" was: 1)Europe 2)Asia 3)Africa 4)America 5)Oceania 6)Antartica (not populated)

The division between Europe and Asia being the Urals; Latin America, part of America(singular) that spoke languages derived from Latin (which is ALMOST the same as to say that its part of America that was colonized by Spain and Portugal); Mexico thus being a Latin-American country in north America (which is a sibdivision of America) LtDoc 21:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Blocking of JoshuaSchroder

I've unblocked him as Ed blocking him after being personally involved in disputes with him is improper. You should have asked for assistance from an outside admin.

First you block Dunc yesterday, now JS. Should I be worried too? Because you seem to have lost it and are on a blocking rampage against anyone who's opposed you on creationism-related article. FeloniousMonk 19:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You are a reasonable person; I wouldn't block you, because you would never do anything against Wikipedia policy.

And it's not a rampage: I discussed both blocks with other admins - even with arbcom members. I'm not the Lone Ranger. Uncle Ed 19:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Look Ed, I like you and think you're a good chap and reasonable person also. Put your reasonable, objective person hat on for a moment and look at it from the outside: Two editors you've had personal conflicts with on similar topics blocked in 24 hrs indicates a pattern.

Blocks for disruption are controversial. Blocks for disruption of editors you are personally in conflict with on articles you are editing are just simply improper (believe me, I know having learned the hard way).

I can't imagine any arbcom member condoning you blocking any editor you're currently involved in a dispute with. Were these discussions you had public? If so, I'm sure interested parties would like to see them. FeloniousMonk 20:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Interested party here. Or am I on your block list, as I was the first to move to re-establish the page I assume JS was blocked for moving? Please explain your actions for the rest of us, as currently things don't look good. Vsmith 23:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please resign your admin privileges

I am going to ask you formally here on the talkpage to resign your administrator privileges as it seems you are too hot-under-the-collar to use them responsibly. Blocking me was an example of a big no-no here at Wikipedia: using blocking to further your own editorial goals. You were involved with the editting of the pages over which you did the blocking. At the very least, you should have requested a block from another admin. You instead acted unilaterally to effectively assert your own power as an administrator.

Would you please list where you discussed this block with other admins/arbcom members?

Thanks,

-Joshuaschroeder 20:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed, Joshuaschroeder has been trolling the various pages of Wikipedia. There has not been any unresponsible administrator privileges activity. JDR

Please see the strikethrough removal of my attempts to deal with this particular user: here and the RfC and RFArb. Joshuaschroeder 23:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Your current opinion on blocking Dunc?

Ed, I've joined the Dunc RFC as you may have seen. One of the issues there is your block of him. I've added my name to the list of those who think he should not have been blocked; however there are about equal numbers on both sides of that question. But it would make sense, I think, to have your *current* opinion on whether you think, in retrospect, you should have blocked Dunc. Because if you now think you shouldn't have, that effectively resolves that section and we can concentrate on the other points at issue. BTW, I hope you've noticed that Dunc has reformulated his original intemperate response (at my suggestion, tra la, shall I join the mediation group?).

Also, I don't think you should resign your admin priviledges.

Regards,

William M. Connolley 16:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I will never resign my admin privileges. An intemperate block would not call for that. I'm willing to state that while he should have been blocked it may not have been wise for ME to be the blocker. But this incessant, "I have the right and who are you to judge" stuff is for the birds. I have no time for it. Uncle Ed 17:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to. And if there was a vote on it, I'd vote for you to keep them. And I was hoping for an isolated answer, in the absence of "I have the right" on either side. OK, so you still think he should have been blocked, though perhaps not by you. I disagree; thats OK. But I think that your it may not have been wise for ME to be the blocker is a bit vague; ideally I'd like you to say "I should not have blocked him" (if you like, with the caveat that someone should have). William M. Connolley 19:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC).

Sorry to keep pursuing you - this will be the last - I'll point out that you have just signed up to Ed Poor's block of Duncharris appears to be way out of line on the RFC page! William M. Connolley 20:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC).

You asked for my current opinion, and I gave it. I expected you'd be pleased, doc. Uncle Ed 01:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Duplication in samizdat

Hi Ed, welcome back. I noticed that you duplicated the phrase from Techniques section about "handwriting or typewriting..." almost word-by-word in the Intro. Was it intentional? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You can remove the duplication. I was just trying to fix the intro, but then I probably forgot to finish the article. I'm working on dozens at once. Uncle Ed 01:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I think it's time for you to seriously reconsider your approach to Wikipedia. I'd like you to stop with the bullying, and stop with the creation of POV forks. It's inappropriate and it hurts the project. I remember bringing the POV fork issue up to you on your talk page before, and I'm disappointed to see that you've continued, to the dismay of many, many editors. If you're not willing to give up your admin abilities (a move which I think you should consider seriously), please be more reasonable in how you use them! You should not use your admin powers, or your "regular editor" abilities, to push your own POV. A few simple steps that would help would be 1) don't block users you're in a content dispute with, 2) don't tamper with Afds, and 3) don't create forks of creationism-related topics without getting consensus first. Numbers 1 and 2 are so obvious that any reasonable admin should already know them. Number 3 may be more controversial, but given the trouble you've been causing, I think it's a reasonable request in your case. Friday (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations here are totally without merit, as are Karl A. Krueger's on the mailing list. [22] Both amount to fundamental attacks on Wikipedia's NPOV policy and aim to defend POV pushing by others while blaming me groundlessly (and without a shred of evidence). A typical case of the Big Lie technique: defend you own side's transgressions by loudly and frequently projecting the transgression onto the other side.

Please withdraw your accusation that I have "pushed my own POV", pending at least the posting of even one article diff in which you feel I have pushed my POV. Uncle Ed 15:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Friday does have some valid points for you to consider though. Joshuaschroeder, a valuable longtime contributor, has left the project citing bullying by you. And your article Unguided evolution is viewed by many as a POV fork according to the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unguided evolution. I don't expect any of this to change your mind Ed, but it is something to think about. FeloniousMonk 17:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"Citing" is not the same as "proving". I wrote a nice, friendly note at User:Joshuaschroeder inviting him back!

The project pages Wikipedia:POV fork and Wikipedia:Content forking aren't policy. And both (or at least the latter) approve the idea of creating a related article which clarifies points inadequately discussed in the articles from which they branch.

But thank you for you thoughtful and civil remarks. Even when we disgree, I think you and I have always disgreed courteously. Uncle Ed 17:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Completely without announcement, an article was moved from its common English name Nidhogg to the old Norse version Níðhöggr, even though a proposal to move mythology articles to non-English spellings failed to gain consensus. You have expressed interest in simular page moves in the past. Please take a minute to look at this one. CDThieme 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved it back. Uncle Ed 00:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Rollback

Ed, I'd like to ask you not to use rollback to revert edits which are not vandalism. As Wikipedia:Revert#Admins (a guideline, not a policy) explains, this function should be reserved for clear-cut vandalism, and certainly not for edit wars. It's courteous to explain your revert in the edit summary; if you feel you can't do it justice there you can just write "see talk" and explain on the talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I checked with an arbcom member and was told that it's not against policy to do so, but since you have asked me so courteously I shall try to remember - as a favor to you. (I guess it's a bad habit I picked up from user:joshuaschroeder, but as he has resigned in what looks like protest of Wikipedia policy, perhaps his is not a good example to follow. Uncle Ed 00:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I mean User:ScienceApologist of course. Uncle Ed 00:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed. It isn't policy (as I mentioned in my first comment), but I think it's a nice thing to do. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering your actions led to Joshuaschroeder leaving the project, your comments here about him can only been seen to be gloating and in poor taste, Ed. That's really uncalled for and far below what I expected from you. FeloniousMonk 00:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you miss him - for personal reasons - then I sympathize. I didn't make him leave, and he's welcome back if he will follow project guidelines.

But if he left because he disagrees with the goals of the project which I've dedicated 4 years of my life to, then I say "good riddance". No one should be allowed to subvert what we Wikipedians have worked so hard to create. I'm not gloating, but it's not poor taste to defend accurate, unbiased articles against POV-pushing rogues. Uncle Ed 01:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, your opinion of what constitutes a "POV-pushing rogue" is itself suspect, considering many others have leveled the same accusation at you. Given a choice of "POV-pushing rogues," I prefer the sort who don't block others for personal reasons under some pretext and don't gloat when they chase other longterm contributors off the project. But that's just me.

Joshuaschroeder says he left because of your bullying. Watching your actions toward others today, I'm inclined to agree with his claim that he was wronged by you. Your tone here only confirms my conclusion. FeloniousMonk 01:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed, FM has a point - even if what you said about Joshua was right, your action was out of line. But it's your tone and bluster today that's really going a bit far. You can't threaten people for using the same language that you are using. Guettarda 01:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned by this, and what you said earlier today, namely that "Joshua is not the first user whom I've chased away for thwarting the values of the Wikipedia community." (in the deleted history of User:Joshuaschroeder). Is this really something to be proud of? — Matt Crypto 01:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon

Ed, just to let you know, FuelWagon has started the stalking and personal attacks again. I have deliberately kept out of his way, so I haven't done anything to provoke his attention. He turned up at Animal rights, a page I edit regularly, and inserted nonsense into the intro, reverting against me, Babajobu, Felonious Monk, and Sparks. As he's been doing it for several days with no sign of stopping, I requested page protection so the page is now locked. He also turned up again at Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, another article he has only ever edited to cause trouble. The toxic comments have also started again on article and user talk pages, for example here, here and here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)