Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:12, 22 June 2005

Template:Adminchat

WP:RFM

I've just checked WP:MC and a lot of mediators seem to be inactive now (more are listed as inactive than as active.) Do you have some time to take on some of the new requests at RFM? Also, is the mediator mailing list mod still moderating the mailing list or is that person also inactive? - Mgm| 18:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'm available. But if there's a mediator mailing list, I'm unaware of it. How about making me the list moderator? I used to moderate (or "administer") the English Misplaced Pages mailing list. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Okay now: I'm back on the mailing list; you (1) are on the committee now and (2) are the chairmen pro tem; and I have agreed to be vice chairman (serving in your absence).

(I'm thinking of buying The Complete Idiot's Guide to Getting Along with Difficult People.)

Gitmo

POV fork

Ed, to me a POV fork is an article that either A. pushes a particular POV or B. split a particular POV out of an article in order to make that article free of that POV. I'm not making any judgement on the POV conflict at hand at all. I'm just in favor of resolving content disputes, not creating second articles on the same topic to spread the mess around. --FCYTravis 22:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Qur'an desecration by US military

Ed, what's the go with the high number of page moves on that article? You've been pinged on WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a long story. The short version is that every time the other contributors changed the scope of the article, I would change its title. It should be stable, now that Brandon tweaked it. But the whole gang wants my head in a basket now. Well, I always said someday I'd get lucky and they'd pull my permit. Or maybe common sense and NPOV will prevail. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Weeelll... certainly I think that there is a lack of giving you the benefit of the doubt: they most certainly should be assuming good faith. However, I'm not certain that User:Commodore Sloat really was personally attacking you, though the language used was most definitely inflammatory and I wonder if I would have reacted any differently. My suggestion: take a small break from the article, or don't let the guy needle you. Speak to another admin, if need be. Someone like User:Lupo, who is a neutral party and can see things fairly objectively. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I shall certainly follow your advice. How can we cooperate, if no one listens to anyone else? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Let's see: how long has it been? At least 48 hourss since I've edited either of the Allegations of Qur'an desecration articles.

• Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 (Redirected from Qur'an desecration by US military); or,
• Qur'an desecration by US detainees which is earmarked for deletion.

My last edit to the above 2 articles (or redirects leading there) was:

02:16, Jun 15, 2005 (hist) (diff) Qur'an desecration  
controversy of 2005 (→Repercussions - fixed link)

ToyToy keeps asking me to clean up the redirects, and Fizzle says I'm welcome back to the team, but Brandon says it's not nearly long enough - so I hesitate. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusofToropov

You could start by apologizing openly for a) constantly moving pages without securing anything like consensus and b) implying that you and I were somehow collaborating on your latest, disruptive page move, which we were in no way, shape or form doing. That's what I would put on the list. BrandonYusufToropov 19:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No need to yell, Brandon. Anyway this link to the US Senate's debate over the comments of Sen. Dick Durbin may be helpful. It appears the issue of Gitmo is spilling over to the Senate floor, and getting quite heated there.--ghost 12:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed, BrandonYusufToropov has requested mediation over a conflict with you. I am willing to mediate the dispute. Do you accept? If so, please end me an email at pgunn@dachte.org. --Improv 06:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course! Thanks for offering to do this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Medation Committee Template

I believe you gave me (JCarriker) more support than I have from the mediation committee when you added the template to my nomination. It currently says MC : 4 I believe it should say MC: 2 support, Community: 2 support, unless you move MacGyverMagic (MGM)'s vote to MC in which case it would be MC:3 Community: 1. -JCarriker 11:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm far too generous. I'll go take a look at that. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs

Dear Ed Poor, at the moment there is a poll taking place on the Macedonian Slavs talk page to which you could make a significant contribution. Thank you in advance for your participation. Ivica83 13:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I posted a long comment about NPOV. I'm not sure I'd like to be in the poll.

ooooops! :D

I fully, fully, fully apologise! the 'shit' remark was refering to generic 'shit' as in 'what is this shit?' or 'shit happens' :) and the go jump in the adriatic sea was a remark on both sides to cool off! See, I live in Patras, so i prefer the Ionian Sea from the Agaion Sea :D

Trust me, no personal remarks or attacks there. I personally think that we (all of us editors dealing with the topic) should chill the crap out and go grab a beer together or 10 and sort this shit out, really really quick. No offence to ethnicity or anything but we got more important things as a penninsula to deal with. you will be assimilated into the EU sometime in the next 10 years, Greece has it's shitloads of economic trouble up ahead (and i wouldn't be surpsised if it was the first country kicked out of the EU), i keep hearing about albanians trying to re-ignite kosovo and all those good stuff and china is just up ahead as an economic force, which means that the whole of EU has to deal with this, as a whole. The name is one of my lesser concerns, man :)

Hope i didn't offend ya :D Project2501a 11:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you brightened my day. Thanks! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:27, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo mediation

(Looks above) Um, I can see you're busy. However, if you can spare the energy, the Terri Schiavo & Talk:Terri Schiavo pages have ramped up again following the release of the autopsy report. I'd love you hear your thoughts on the state of things. If you're committed, would you suggest anyone else to help us sort things out? Thanks for the effort.--ghost 14:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I've been asked by ghost to step in as Mediator. How do you feel about that? And where (if anywhere) shall we discuss all this?"

-- Uncle Ed, I finally offered some feedback at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation (I made up for being a little late to jump in, but I think I did my part, finally!) Now, I hope to chill out and let me feedback soak in to the others' brains. What do you think of my feedback on the mediation page here? Thx, --GordonWattsDotCom 13:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I feel fine about it. Probably on Talk:Terri Schiavo but I'm not attached. FuelWagon 23:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I'm definitely the worst, most unqualified person for this job, but since no one else has volunteered you may as well give it a go. What have you got to lose?" Dude, you gotta cut this kind of talk out. No one's said that about you that I've seen, and if it was meant even in jest, it still comes across as at least half-serious. FuelWagon 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Refactored. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm an old hand at mediation, but I don't know the latest formats and conventions. How about a subpage like Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation? It would be limited to those agreeing to Mediation, of course, which so far is just YOU! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree to Mediation as well. Ann Heneghan 17:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, I was late, but I voted to support your mediation help.

At http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Terri_Schiavo_and_the_Talk:Terri_Schiavo_pages which is saved in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation&diff=0&oldid=15489265 I also voted in favor of your help.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess I better list all the "agree-ers" at RFM. At last count, there are 3 of you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Several others have agreed elsewhere, including Duckecho @ RFM. And, of course, your's truly...--ghost 17:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do me a favor, will you, Casper? List all the names at RFM and at the TS talk subpage? I'm swamped doing other stuff, but I'll take a look this P.M. (US East Coast time). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Np. Forgive me if I miss anyone.--ghost 19:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL, ghosts have no legal rights, but you've established your credentials substantially enough. Let the healing begin. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 23:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome

Edmund Ward Poor

I'm a bit concerned about this article - for one thing, it's inappropriate to write an article on your father, much like writing an article on yourself. For another, it's inappropriate to remove a speedy delete tag from an article you wrote. For a third, I'm finding some problems verifying the information - I can't find any Henry Poor at the University of Florida, and the article on the Grumman company doesn't mention your father at all. Snowspinner 02:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

1. not my father - my grandfather
2. I didn't remove the speedy delete tag - unless it was by mistake. I checked when I saw it disappear, but I'll check it again.
3. The article on Grumman Aircraft really ought to mention my grandfather. He was pretty well known in Long Island, before the Bethpage facility closed down.

But I won't oppose a deletion - if you think he's not notable. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oops! You're right; well, we are both right. I did deleted the speedy delete - because I had mistakenly put only the URL for the external link. Zscout restored the sd, but then took it out himself again. But he's still not my father, and still was Grumman's co-founder and treasurer. (Unless my parents brainwashed me ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I won't delete, since he seems encyclopedic, but you probably shouldn't add articles on family. :) Snowspinner 03:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

not even charles henry poor?

Template:Terry

Aloha. Your template could cause a problem on talk pages, since anyone trying to edit a comment (without using the add a comment feature) might edit the template instead. In fact, this happened to me. :-) I added {{subst:terry}} instead. --Viriditas | Talk 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see you're playing around with it. Try to edit the {{terry}} section below this comment, as if you were going to post a reply or a new comment. You'll see what I mean. Heh. --Viriditas | Talk 11:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt.

please have a look (I think this is pretty urgent.)

Ed, hi,

A relatively new contributor, Zen-master, has taken an interest in the article on Race_and_intelligence and has decided to attack Rikurzhen, calling him a racist and a Nazi. I've tried to reason with him regarding the main point of contention, but he ignores anything that anybody says to him and comes back with a personal attack. His latest was, essentially, "Only a Nazi would say what you just said." He seems to be a responsible contributor on other articles, but he insists on fulminating on the discussion page. His behavior has gone beyond the point where I feel it appropriate to dignify his theoretical challenges because he never speaks to the question, just calls names. Could you please have a look? I almost started a "request for comment," but that seemed too extreme. Rikurzhen is one of the most level-headed and non-ideological contributors to Misplaced Pages that I know of, and it is entirely an outrage for him to be called a racist and a Nazi simply because he has been involved in straightening out an article -- one that a year ago was such a mess that I just threw up my hands at it. Thanks. P0M 02:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

My accusation could be accurate, it's certainly plausible. Why are there seemingly two users on that talk page the seek to perpetuate a misuse of language? Why is everything they post designed to misdirect third parties away from understanding the core of the issue? Why do you focus only on my accusations in this matter rather than the core of the original dispute? zen master T 02:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because accusing other contributors is against the policy of this website. I hate to tell you this, but I have to: there's a policy page at Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. You know, this is an encyclopedia, not a chat board. No offense, but you really have to tone down your language.

Are you asking why we have such a policy here? If so, you've come to the right place. I helped write the policy over 2 years ago. But I'd rather you just would respond by realizing (as in a flash of intuition ;-) that it's best to simply follow it. Then we all could get back to business.

Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am not directly accusing them and it's by no means a "personal attack", I merely have stated their actions are either racist and/or nazi-esque which is the only plausible theory that I have come up with to explain the degree to which they seem to deflect away from any analysis on the apparently intentional misuse of language in that article. Why needlessly commingle and confuse effect with cause if you believe in a conclusion scientifically? Why do they use repetition to reienforce a provably errant use of language? They seemingly totally ignore the prime directive of wikipedia which is neutrality. Why do so many users, including yourself, accuse people of violating wikipedia guidelines in an apparent attempt to impugn potentially valid criticisms? Don't accuse people of violating wikipedia guidelines for the purpose of misdirecting third parties away from the illustration of a point. Third parties should instead be focused toward the core or essence of the issues(s). zen master T 03:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm an admin, and I'm warning you. Don't do it again, or you will be blocked temporarily from editing Misplaced Pages. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Merely pointing out people's actions is a blockable offense? Do you support their POV? Have you looked at my criticisms of their and the article's use of language? If so, what did you think? zen master T 04:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not pointing out, not "objecting to" - accusing. If you had said that their edits made the article appear biased to you, that would have been perfectly within bounds. Calling them Nazis would be way out of bounds. Do you get it, now?

BYT RFA

hello Ed; I wish you could shed light on your nomination, with regard to your ongoing dispute with BYT. " He ought to have the ability to undo hasty page moves" obviously refers to your moves of the Quran desecration article, but I find it difficult to decide whether you genuinely admit that your moves were "hasty", and should have been undone, or if you're using tounge-in-cheek sarcasm against BYT. please clarify on the RFA page, thank you. regards dab (ᛏ) 08:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Hasty" means "too quick". Everyone but me says they were too quick. But what I forgot is that it is hard for non-admins to undo a page move. This gave me an "advantage" I didn't realize I had. I'd like to even things out, that's all.

I still think my page moves were right: the title should reflect the article scope. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

Didn't we agree not to edit Guantanamo articles until mediation was concluded? (I just sent you a response to yesterday's message.) Peace, BYT

Sorry, couldn't resist. I will revert my own change, upon request. It's up to you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)