| Revision as of 19:03, 13 October 2005 view sourceThe sun and the moon (talk | contribs)32 edits rv temper tantrum← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:08, 13 October 2005 view source Ed Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,195 editsm Reverted edits by The sun and the moon to last version by FlcelloguyNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| =I am on vacation= | |||
| I need a break. I'm going to take a week off from Misplaced Pages. Try not to break anything while I'm gone. | |||
| Thanks. | |||
| Ed Poor | |||
| =Old Talk= | |||
| I've archived this page so many times that I've lost track. Sorry to have beeen so sloppy. {{Template:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}Calendar2005}} | |||
| * | |||
| Please see my ]. Thank you. --] 13:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages creed== | |||
| Have a look at ]. I'd value your input. ] 10:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow! At first, I thought you were writing it for me; putting my own thoughts into words on my behalf. Then I realized it was your own thoughts, of course! I'm choked with gratitude and relief to think that I'm not the only one who thinks this way about knowledge and cooperation and service. :-) ] 14:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Glad to have cheered you up, you have often been an inspiration to me. ]. ] 21:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Elitism and hierarchy== | |||
| Are you part of the ]? ] 17:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Ed, don't you first have to be a left-wing, Zionist supporter of Ayn Rand? :) Nice article, btw. ] 17:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. See what links there, and you'll realize what inspired it. ] 02:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == MedCom == | |||
| Hello, you are one of the 7 remaining active medcom members. I have '''''immensely''''' decluttered the ] page. Now I would like to start assigning people to cases. If you do not have the time for this, please remove yourself from the active listings. I hope that we can become active again, and we won't need ] to cover for us as they have. Please check RfM frequently as I may be assigning you. And of course you can always turn down cases and choose your own, its not some kind of the-leaders-make-you-do-what-they-say deal... anywho, just saying I'm trying to revive the medcom. Thanks, ]]] (]) 00:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Oi Ed, is that Iraqi case still active? If not, please archive... ]]] (]) 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Archived. Should I go back to Terri Schiavo, or what? ] 02:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === Mediation Issues Reply === | |||
| You suggested that I should agree to serve on the MedCom. I am willing to if the other mediators agree. If you look at the agenda of Requests for Arbitration, there is a Request for Arbitration about the ], and one suggestion that amounts to mediation. I am not a physicist, but I do have a degree in chemistry, and a general idea of what the standards are for deciding what is mainstream science. I am willing to be appointed as the mediator. ] 00:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === Sam Spade and Exploding Boy === | |||
| aha! we do have an active mediator. But that whole thing confused me as you never moved it from new requests to active. Is it still active even though? ]]] (]) 01:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :They need a mediator, and probably should take it to private e-mail - unless it's just grandstanding. ] 02:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === Mediation === | |||
| Hello, Uncle Ed! Thanks for your support of my ]; I'm pleased to join you as a mediator. Thanks once again. ] |<small> ]</font color>| ] </small>| ]<sub>] </sub> 20:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| Hi, Uncle Ed, | |||
| At least 2 of the 4 of us in Price-Anderson feel like we need a formal conclusion to the Mediation process to preven future edit warring. We look forward to having you back. ] 08:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Century articles == | |||
| Is there a good reason why you have moved the century articles? The new names appear to contradict the ]. ] — ] | ] 15:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I checked each page after I moved it with the "What links here" function. All the links I saw were to the word-written-out form of the article title. I did not see any redirects from the numeric form of the article title. | |||
| :So what's the problem? | |||
| ::Well, there's that the style guidelines do say that you're supposed to use the number instead of the spelled-out name, even if many links have failed to follow this guideline. Also, you've changed the eighteenth through twenty-first centuries to the spelled out names, but there are many other century pages left which still have numeric names, and the links within the century pages all use the numeric form. ] 23:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I guess that means I should finish what I started, and then rewrite the policy. Okay? ] 23:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mmmm no ed, I don't think that's how it works here. We discuss policy, then make the appropriate changes. Unless you are the policy, in which case don't let me stop you. ... --] 04:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Evolution RFC == | |||
| Saw your RFC; not sure if you realised that the ] article says specifically: | |||
| :''This article is about evolution in the field of life science. For other uses, see ].'' | |||
| The article has been intentionally kept on a narrow focus - the other issues are dealt with in other articles...it's too big as is. ] 23:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay, I renamed ] to ]. I also provided references for what I supposed was common knowledge: that the Catholic Church does '''not''' accept the theory of evolution (in the naturalistic sense). I guess it's not common knowledge, even though it only took 30 seconds to google it up, because the Cardinal I quoted charged his opponents with misquoting the Pope. ] 23:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Solar system bullets== | |||
| Hello there, | |||
| These are a nice idea but rather superfluous given the presence of '''Template:Footer SolarSystem''' at the bottom of the page. I imagine the bullets will get removed very soon. Just thought I'd be polite and warn you! ] 21:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :They let the user browse more easily from one planet to another. A lot of people might not even realize there was a nav-box at the bottom. | |||
| :Maybe the footer should be moved to the upper right? ] 21:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: I guess it might get cluttered with the infoboxes if it was there. I do agree that navboxes can easily get overlooked, though. Maybe try discussing the problem on the nav-box talk page? ] 21:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Oh Noes!! == | |||
| I saw your listing at ] and I hope that if it gets too much for you, take a break. Don't leave the wiki, just maybe a break would be good for you. You '''still''' are one of the most respected people at the wiki. ]]] (]) 00:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Ed Poor award for boldness! == | |||
| ]<sup>(])</sup>] 02:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)]] | |||
| (Well, you are Ed, so technically everything you do is an Ed Poor!) --]<sup>(])</sup>] 02:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Smoddy == | |||
| I should be online c. 8pm UTC, if that's good for you. Cheers, ]</nowiki>]] 07:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I guess that would be 4:00 P.M. in New York. See you there! ] 12:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm on IRC any time from now until 12 pm UTC, if earlier suits. Cheers, ]</nowiki>]] 18:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Visual Basic Classic Wikibook == | |||
| I see you have contributed to the Visual Basic article on Misplaced Pages. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? --] 09:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, and thanks for the invitation. I'm rather good at programming in VB, and I might be good at explaining it. ] 12:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hurray. I hope to see some additions soon. --] 16:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Bot move? == | |||
| Do you have a bot that moved the article on the Norse god ] to a deletion page for some reason I don't understand, or is a vandal impersonating you? I was working on the article when it moved and it was very confusing. Please help! ] 03:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't have any bots. I'll take a look. ] 03:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please see ] -- it must be a vandal, then. ] 03:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Yes: | |||
| # 03:24, October 1, 2005, Ed Poor blocked #40350 (expires 03:24, October 2, 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Uncle Ed's major work 'bot". The reason given for Uncle Ed's major work 'bot's block is: "impersonating me, moving articles to strange titles".) | |||
| # 03:24, October 1, 2005, Ed Poor blocked Uncle_Ed's_major_work_'bot (infinite) (contribs) (unblock) (impersonating me, moving articles to strange titles) | |||
| It looks like that vandal moved lots of pages. I can't move ] back to where it should be, unfortionately. ] 03:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| Just wanted to say, thank you for your mediation on ]. I wish I were a better "good samaritan" and able to handle this sort of thing better :/.] 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Bot Vandalism == | |||
| I'm going to put a little message on ] to get some administrators to help out. Unfortunately it's late in the night for me too. --] 04:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey, no problem. It just happened that I noticed that. Actually, I think ] and ] are more deserving of your thanks. They started a discussion about this too at ]. | |||
| :As an aside, I have a ] here on Misplaced Pages who is working on some new stubs and categories. Maybe you could help answer question or perhaps let me know where I can find more information? --] 14:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey == | |||
| ] | |||
| Just dropped by to leave a kind word, smiling face, and offer a shoulder. So: | |||
| #"Keep your chin up; it'll get better. You ''are'' appreciated, whether it feels like it or not." | |||
| #See right. | |||
| #If you ever need someone to chat with, just to stressbust, drop in #wp-esperanza, and I'll be happy to talk. | |||
| Voila! -- ] · ] 08:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == MedCom interview == | |||
| Hi Ed. How's about 3pm UTC today? If there's a particular time convinient to you, I can probably make it, so long as it isn't after 11 pm UTC. Cheers, ]</nowiki>]] 11:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Or I'm online right now, if that helps. Cheers, ]</nowiki>]] 11:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'm also in IRC at the moment. -- ] · ] 11:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I enjoyed talking with you both and look forward to your joining the ]. ] 14:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uncle Ed, have you talked with either ] or ] yet? I don't have IRC, and would be interested if you have chatted with either of them. Both of them are not admins and have relatively few edits, and I have not interacted with either one of them. And by the way, you are '''very appreciated''' at Misplaced Pages — I know we all get frustrated sometimes. I have complete trust in your abilities and in you, and you are a great asset to Misplaced Pages. ] |<small> ]</font color>| ] </small>| ]<sub>] </sub> 15:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wow, Small World== | |||
| And I was beginning to think that I was the only ] Wikipedian around. Yeah sure, i'd love to chat with you regarding the ]. I joined awhile back expecting something to happen, but so far, i've heard not a peep from anyone despite my name being up there. ] is half right, i've got, which isn't a beginner, but still isn't enough to classify me with the ''really'' active users. I also need to get IRC, i'll probably just download Mozilla, but my laptop may be going in the shop soon. ] 16:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Although I don't know you yet, if ] and ] always speak so highly of you as they do here on your talk page, that's a big plus for you in my book. To me, those two are the epitome of model Wikipedians. ] 16:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, it's nice to be in a ] :-) ] 17:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure is. I've been on IRC alot in the past few days, but we must have just missed each other or something. Also, can I get your opinion on ]? I personally find them to be inexcusable. Let me know if the Coolcat subpage discussion progresses at all, I tried my best in there but couldn't really move it along. ] 21:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Mediation Committee application == | |||
| Hello! I would love to have a meeting with you on IRC. I am on quite a bit using the handle of SasquatchW. Cheers! ''']'''<span style="background-color:#C1FF5F">]|]</span> 22:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm, do you want to set a meeting time? Because I never seem to have the luck to see you on... ''']'''<span style="background-color:#C1FF5F">]|]</span> 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for meeting me and RedWolf24. I have marked '''approve''' on your offer to join the MedCom. ] 16:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Fadix VfDed something in my userpage. What do you think? --] ] 23:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Ed, I would ask you to consider having a talk with User:Cool Cat about the assorted references to ], ] and myself in his userspace. I feel that it would be a good thing for all concerned — and I include all of Misplaced Pages — if all of the references were removed. | |||
| Oh, ] is now at: | |||
| ]. | |||
| — ] 09:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Horse whisperer is hoarse == | |||
| I'm moving this to ]. ] 01:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Writing for the enemy == | |||
| Ed, I would like to expand ]. If you have any advice or suggestions, please let me know. For example, has the page been superseded by a newer policy or guideline? Thanks in advance. --] | ] 01:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Please go right ahead! This is not an official policy, just a strategy I have suggested. I consider it to be in the spirit of Misplaced Pages co-founder ]. (Gosh, nobody ever talks about him any more, but he really got things going in the formative year or so.) ] 01:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, that's interesting. Do you think it would be helpful to have some background information on the idea? What was Sanger getting at exactly, or what was influencing his thinking on this matter? No hurry on this. --] | ] 01:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Voldy's RfA == | |||
| Moved to ]. ] 22:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Ed-- Thank you for your support. I am not sure what made you change your mind, but if promoted, I promise that I won't do anything rash. I have read ], and won't try and go too fast through the progression. Again, thank you. --]]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font>|]</sup> 13:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Math== | |||
| <math>\frac{m_0 v}{ \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}</math> | |||
| == Stressed out? == | |||
| Your contributions are huge, but I recommend stepping back from the stuff and start writing some articles again...I don't know all your interests, but there are over a thousand redlined links of unwritten articles which you can find through ] and or just go to ] and follow the links to lists of wilderness areas, national forests and fish and wildlife areas. Maybe that gives you more stress. It's so easy to get drawn into this thing, I would stop placing stress on yourself to feel the need to contribute more than you feel comfortable or in areas that you feel burned out in. Just a few thoughts.--] 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I started here much more recently than you obviously and posted about 5 anon edits to the George W. Bush article, created my user account, then pretty much hung around that ONE article for some time, posting less than 10 to 15 edits per day. I found that experience brought out the worst in me and Misplaced Pages was more work than play. Then I came upon an area that reconnected me with my past work (Land Management) and started writing articles. It gives me a break from my current job which is unrelated and kind of reconnects me with my youth and what I like. Once I got involved in that, I was able to join the Harmonious editing club (to help curb my appetite for revert warrring) and I now do a combination of watchdog efforts, RC Patrol, a few votes in Afd and kind of mix it all up, rarely becoming overly entangled in anything too contenious. I find that the article creation for the area of my passion, is sort of like building a puzzle...I have to research the information, rewrite it to avoid copyvio, I have contacted some photographers via email to utilize their images, and there is some sort of finality to it, since the information has few changes over time. Additionally, there isn't much to argue about since the area of a land resource is known, the height of a mountain is known and if you are really bored, a quick check of a few of my creations reveils that there have been few other contributors...maybe there's only a handful of those out there that worry about articles such as the ones I write. In a nutshell, I would discover a path along those lines and deemphasize the stressful areas, maybe even step away from them some for awhile and then seek out a balance or combination.--] 19:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The writing articles thing is just an idea and I'm sure you've done plenty of that, but even a short stub gives others something to work with. I see you've been involved in the WikiProject Horses? (not sure of the exact title) and that's great, maybe it will get you away from some of the beauracracy of this place. Just tell yourself that it's okay to disengage. I find simplistic RC Patrol a stress buster...might even go do some now since I'm in a lull here at work...(I'm almost always at a lull at work....I'm only needed when the shit hits the fan.) Let me know if there's anything I can do.--] 00:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about your comments on emotion == | |||
| ''"Who's more emotional, men or women? Contrary to popular belief, I think men are much more emotional than women. Women let out surface shit like crying to their friends because everyone's going away to school, but I think men have emotion that runs deeper than oceans. We hold them in, (we must) and we confront them in private, in our rooms, in our sleep, in our car, in our MUSIC. Music can BREAK a man in half. Tear him down to a child. Sitting on the floor, crying, listening to those beautiful melodies, wanting love, wanting to give love, share love, feel, feel, feel. Women like to dance to music, and have beautiful rhythym, but I've never met one where the music could kill them. Where the music was EVERYTING. Where music had the power to strip them of walls and masks. For my male friends, music saves them. It purges them of deep desperation and aguish in this idiotic world where men can't cry."'' | |||
| Did you say that yourself (in ]), or were you quoting someone else? Because those words really made a lot of sense to me... Thanks for finding a way to say something that actually explains how I feel in a way for better than I could ever find myself. ] 19:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Gosh, no, I'm not that good a writer. I meant to include a web link to the source. It's from a blog discussion on "Why don't women like the Beach Boys?": | |||
| :*By White Cap on Tuesday, September 28, 1999 - 10:35 am | |||
| == Your wikistress level == | |||
| Hello again, Uncle Ed. Sorry to see the stress meter going up. Hope it's back down at the green level soon. ] ] 20:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Strange browser behavior == | |||
| Ed, hi, | |||
| (Deleted a problem message. It disappeared by itself.) | |||
| I hope everything is going well with you. The horse article seems to be going smoothly. I've found a precursor to the 18th century U.S. guys, somebody named Sullivan who died in 1810. No other info yet, but will look around in the indices of my books. ] 05:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Good man == | |||
| I see you do a lot of good work around here, and I thought I'd rework this thing I saw on someone else's user page, and present it to you | |||
| ] | |||
| I hope your commitment to neutrality and fair representation continue to grace us for years to come--] 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You might be intersted in helping to form the ]. ] 13:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal Google Maps Interface == | |||
| Ed, | |||
| Google maps has released a wonderful api | |||
| I wish to propose that Misplaced Pages add an option to display a google map with wiki markers and content. | |||
| It is a rich (yet low bandwidth) environment for describing lists of geographically related data. | |||
| I have learned how to create a map which can be directly edited - and the results stored from the web, and I believe the Misplaced Pages would benefit. | |||
| Will you assist me in proposing it as a language extension? | |||
| (have a look at ) | |||
| ] | |||
| :Ben, this is a great suggestion. Let's start ] page to discuss it. Thanks. ] 12:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == A WINNAR IS YOU! == | |||
| Hi! Just thought I'd tell you that you've been put up for ] by ]. This seems like something a guy should know about, and based on some of his recent edits, Bah' seems to want to keep the matter hush-hush. You know, under wraps. So, uh, surprise! Happy Arbitration Day! --] (]) 13:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I would have seen it eventually: I use the "history" function on my talk page from time to time. But thanks for letting me know. I have responded there. ] 14:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Voting to determine consensus == | |||
| "Let's put it to a vote: what's the best way to determine consensus at Misplaced Pages?" ~Uncle Ed (from his user page) | |||
| I get it. It's a conflict of terms. Consensus is different than voting, so voting to determine consensus would be meaningless, right? | |||
| I submit that there is no way to achieve consensus unless we allow for non-consensus. If a black-and-white decision must be made in every case, "consensus" becomes nothing but a vote, so why call it anything else? Why fool ourselves into thinking that we can achieve consensus here at Misplaced Pages? What happens when a minority interest truly believes that the majority opinion is factually incorrect? Can the minority interest keep the majority definition from becoming the article? Would it be consensus if it could? Would this issue be any different if we called consensus a 60% majority or even a 55% majority. Of course not. | |||
| In the end Misplaced Pages:Consensus has only one implementation, a 50.0001% majority rule. Administrators can always step in to "apply common sense", but does that improve consensus? It does if editors respect the opinions of those administrators over their own. From what I can tell, gaining that respect is the goal of many administrators here, but is that goal achievable? Will Misplaced Pages editors ever become truly subservient to the whims of administrators? I submit that they will not, and I offer an alternative to this increasingly absurd path: the possibility for non-consensus to exist. | |||
| Viable non-consensus allows consensus to happen. Only when one has a practicable choice to go against popular opinion can he feel ''free'' and ''part of the community'' at the same time. This sense of combined ''liberty'' and ''social responsibility'' allows people to weigh the two often-conflicting conclusions they reach when considering each separately. If they are still part of the community, a person will generally weigh their social responsibility very heavily, and only opt for something else when it is blatantly false or against the good of the whole. | |||
| Implementation of real consensus can only come when there is a third alternative to ''adoption of a majority article'' or ''adoption of a minority article''. When someone has a specific phrasing that they feel is better than the one adopted by the general community, and they will not yield to the wording of the majority, there must be an easy way to identify and view that alternate wording from the main article. This link should not detract from the main article, but it must be clearly identified and allow for the fact that the dispute may never be settled. If such a program were implemented, it would raise our "consensus" threshold from, ''realistically'', the 50.0001% that it is now to 95% or better. More importantly, it would allow us to quantify exactly what we mean by Misplaced Pages:Consensus, thereby reducing arbcom wars and vandalism (the only current methods of minority expression) while elevating the respectability of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Responsibility is inextricably tied to decision making. When an institution grows to the size that the people feel stewardship for its success, they are necessarily bound to also influence decision making. Misplaced Pages has grown to this size. It belongs to the people. Recognizing this fact and enabling people to express themselves without treading on the rights of others will preserve its existence as it grows into the world's greatest resource of information. I know your views on giving more power to the people have been skeptical, but I hope I've presented the beginning of an implementation that addresses both a reduction in vandalism and relief for the overworked arbitration committee, while also increasing the viability of information retrieved from Misplaced Pages. --] 15:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I appreciate these thoughtful remarks. It's going to take a while to digest them, though, before I can respond substantively. Considering that we met online under rather tense circumstances and that our relationship has mellowed considerably, your words take on a greater weight for me. Please be patient and give me time to formulate a meaningful response. ] 16:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm always interested in your thoughts, but please don't feel compelled to answer. Your statement simply spawned an idea that I wanted to share with you. If you think it's worthy of expanding upon, I'm always at your disposal. | |||
| ::Also, the more I think about your offer to work on "terrorism" definitions, the more I like the idea. If you find time for that, I'm at your disposal as well. --] 14:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I have started ] - please comment at the ] discussion page. And maybe we could start a WikiProject for difficult political words. ] 15:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Ed == | |||
| Well, we meet again, but under different circumstances this time. I just want you to know that most people around here like and respect you. I saw your listing at ], and thought I might try to say something encouraging. Try not to let one anon editor get you down. The new Wikiproject you created could prove to be an important NPOV tool (although I disagree with ''some'' of your rules there, but that's a diferent story). Just keep up the fight for the good POV of NPOV. Once people understand this is not just some blog to track people's emotions or feelings, great things can happen. I hope you get a chance to relax and lower your stress level a bit. Just know that a supermajority of people here like what you are doing, and that you cannot please everybody all the time. If you ever need any help with stress, just let me know what I can do, and it's done. See you around my friend. --]]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 16:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Bringing you good cheer... == | |||
| Ed, I hope that this peaceful panorama inspires a few deep cleansing breaths and helps to bring down your WikiStress! | |||
| <BR>-- ], member of ]]] | |||
| :Thanks, Mama. That helped a lot. ] 11:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Get on IRC! == | |||
| Karmafist keeps showing up there and you're never there. If you're reading this around the time I'm typing it (doubtful that you're on) then get on #mediation.wikipedia post haste. ]]] (]) 00:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Chill out, little dude. I'm a 46-year-old married man. I have a job, a social life, and many volunteer duties. Sometimes it's good to make an appointment; I can't just show up and hang out all the time. ] 11:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're the one who asked me to come on there, Ed. Please let me know a good time when you get back. It's no rush, I just would like the ] issue out of the way. ] 22:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your mum== | |||
| Brookie here - I have given your mum the benefit of the doubt - but you will need to upgrade this into a decent article - go for it - or it will be deleted! :) ] 18:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :She was a notable author of the early 1970s. "Edited" means she really wrote most of the 4-day book. She also affected legislation. Take a look at the latest version of ] and then do some googling. You could help improve the article, instead of (1) speedily deleting it and (2) watching me undelete it tomorrow when I finish de-stubifying it: your call, pal. ] 18:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Table of the Americas == | |||
| Heya, I've moved ] to ], I'm not sure where you're going with it but as it stood it was a speedy candidate. --]] 04:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :This table helps show how the various countries in the Americas fall into different categories, geographically and culturally. So I undeleted it. ] 04:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::It has no content apart from a table. If you want to use it as a template you should put it in the template namespace, but you might want to scrutinise it for POV first. --]] 04:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Can you help an idleguy? == | |||
| Hi, noticed that you've '''never''' failed to successfully mediate any issues between two editors or on an article. So if you'd be kind enough to hear my story, please have a look at my "case" which might not be very easy to start off. The issue is particularly pertaining to ] who seems to first delete all my information to nearly all India/Pakistan related articles. While I'm an Indian I have to the best of my knowledge not presented any controversial statements which are not backed with neutral sources or in the case of Pakistan related articles, Pakistani sources. Few, if any, statements or opinions on these articles are added by me which come only from one side but a good combination of neutral, pak and indian authors. I shall mention case by case the issue with "anonymous editor" (note: not anonymous user). | |||
| ===Resolved ones (Just for historical background)=== | |||
| 1. ] where he tried to delete statements on Pakistani infiltration before the other authors, including me pointed out the sources and I had to point out the exact pages. Instead of using the talk page he just goes and deletes. | |||
| 2. ] article where he tried to remove statements from pak authors and neutral webpages that said that the general was involved in kargil planning and his failed attempt in 1987 to capture ] | |||
| ===Problem ones (ongoing issues)=== | |||
| These are the issues with which I'm having especially since he '''does not read the sources given''' and expects me to quote the exact lines each and every time. Initially I did this and quoted but he just fails to listen to reason and I've run out of patience. He also fails to respond to personal messages and just deletes them from his talk page frustrating me. | |||
| 1. ] where i quote a reference and he removes it and accuses me of POV. then i add a neutral/pak source still he reverts it to his view and again fails to give any reason other than "POV" despite me presenting facts backed by pak authors he deletes them. I can accept changes to the wording to provide NPOV but he outrightly deletes them and if you see the talk page of this article, he uses words like "limited ability" to abuse me. He also said that "it is very likely that he made it up." commenting on the intro line where it states "90% of all reported terrorist activities worldwide were located in Pakistan" which was taken from a Pakistan source mentioned clearly. Is there any policy that states that I should mention the exact line numbers of a book in Misplaced Pages? | |||
| 2. ] Here too he deleted some of my statements (instead of removing any POV if he saw in it) backed by proof. For eg. The statement on the balochistan issue was backed by ] still he refuses to read the source and deletes it. While the baloch issue would be a genocide as per UN statement (Balochs say state terrorism also is involved) I'm afraid that even if I include the issue of Balochistan again, here or in ] he would promptly delete it and accuse me of adding POV statements. was prepared by the UN on the Balochistan Genocide and including in that article is most likely to bring in the reverts of this furious editor if I did add it. | |||
| ===My errors=== | |||
| I admit I also made a few errors like not starting a talk page earlier and settling them, but I was convinced that this person wouldn't respond even after my personal messages to his account. Also I made requests to state exactly what his reasons were for reverting which he simply quotes as POV in the comment line. Despite this I asked him to use the talk page and initiate a dialogue - which he didn't and I started. I also admit I wasn't really polite but never used any personal attacks despite his irritating behaviour. Finally I should have done something earlier instead of involving myself in stupid edit/revert wars with him as the history shows. Maybe at that time I was so pissed off that I just decided to revert. '''But never have I added factually inaccurate statements''' that was not made by a known neutral source or Pakistani source. | |||
| I think this would have been the longest message someone might have sent you. Actually there are a lot more but i didn't want to bore you any further. If you feel that this is beyond you it's ok but do let me know if you'd mediate on this issue since he is impeding me from editing articles and taking it forward. ] 12:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Response from the other side=== | |||
| Ed, the disputes I had with Idleguy have been resolved for now, I think. As for ], it has reached a point I think which is as neutral as it can get considering both sides (please see talk page and the edit history of the article). I have compromised fairly, but idleguy reverted repeatedly. It was not always a matter of sourcing, but the quality of his sources, which were biased most of the time. Also, he adjusted sentences and statements to give an anti- Pakistani POV, such as where he took the statement that applies to the Information minister of Pakistan and applied it to the entire government. I had urged him to talk about his major additions but he failed to accept until a very prolonged time of adding POV material. See talk page and edit of the article for details. | |||
| As for ], you can look at the edit history on seeing the clear POV that was being added by Idleguy. It was basically a whitewash attempt of the India section and an attempt at POVing the Pakistan section. The initial editor involved was ] and I had a compromise with him (see ) and we both agreed even though he shared the same POV as idleguy. Idleguy reverted immediately despite my agreement with gupta, thus indicating that he was only here only to insert POV. I have tried compromises with Idleguy, but he refuses to agree. I have refrained from making changes to the state terrorism article now and hope that Idleguy will too. See the edit history of that article for details. | |||
| Idleguy has been acting very disruptively in the past, especially on the ] article where he kept messing with the neutrality tag. There is a background to this story that idleguy hasn't told you. | |||
| I can only hope that Idleguy will work productively and neutrally in the future and refrain from his constant personal attacks (incl. ones I deleted from my talk page). For now, in my perspective, the issues have been resolved provided that idleguy does not add anymore objectionable material. | |||
| Enjoy you wikivacation. Yours, ] <sup>]</sup> 04:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the issue is nearly settled and since you're on vacation this is just for the record. Anon's statement "but the quality of his sources, which were biased most of the time." in ] is unfounded. Of the four sources given originally in the article only one was from India (]) which was only a news article and not an opinion (still I had an alternate source from Pakistan). Of the remaining 3 references 2 were from Pakistani authors and the rest was a neutral/third party one. So his accusation that I added mostly biased sources is visibly wrong and can be checked even now. On the guise of accusing others of POV he had deleted entire statements for which sources were provided. | |||
| :As for the other issues, I only hope anon will read the sources (and before he rubbishes them as a blog or forum as he did with rediff.com when clearly he had no knowledge on the site's core business, i.e. news) instead of asking me to point to the exact lines. Also his constant reverts when there is a blatant POV issue on both sides in ] and fiddling with the tag in an attempt to blame only one side shows that he is interesting in protecting one side's interest and mocking others' edits as POV/biased. Misplaced Pages rules state that in case of a problem to both sides it should be tagged accordingly (the current one seems OK). By not following the rules and constantly accusing others of bias little realising his own bias and hindrance to information I wish that there is little conflict with him in the future. | |||
| :To anon:I've made any mistakes (like being a bit rude or obstinate) I'm sorry and hope we can get along. :) Let the past be gone and work towards objectivity and not emotions. Tx to both. And enjoy your wikivacation. ] 05:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Accepted. I did not fiddle with the tag, though, I had the tag there for ages because of requests from editors. Also. I do not have an anti-India bias, since I really don't add any material about India; I mostly change anti-Pakistani material to a lower degree of POV. I never mocked your edits and I reverted tremendously less than you did. You also tried to bring a religious face (sometimes to the degree of bigotry) to the issues by bringing in Islam as a factor, which I tried my best to separate from on India and Pakistan-related articles. Although I don't agree to what you said about your sources (since there were only two in dispute, one of which I agreed with), I urge you to compromise more in the future and not simply revert. I also suggest that you actually observe which statements I have removed and according to which wiki policy I have applied them. Furthermore, I accept your apology, extend mine and hope that we can work together effectively and neutrally in the future . :) Thanks and once again enjoy your wikivacation, Ed. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <chuckle> Well, if it's going to be this easy, I'll just stay on vacation! :-) I'm glad you guys were able to resolve your differences. Half of it, you know, is just '''wanting''' to reconcile. Good for both of you! ] 00:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Enjoy your vacation! == | |||
| Enjoy your vacation/break, and come back refreshed! ] |<small> ]</font color>| ] </small>| ]<sub>] </sub> 14:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you for supporting me on RfA! == | |||
| Dear Ed: I would like to thank you very much for your support on my RfA. It is a great honour to be supported by such an important "Wikipedian emeritus" as yourself, and by one who is so well respected on Misplaced Pages. I consider it to be a true privilege to have the pleasure of your company on IRC, and to have been able to work with you. I promise that I shall use my privileges as an administrator to bring peace to Misplaced Pages, and I promise to exercise careful judgement in my administrative actions. There is much I have to learn from experienced Wikipedians such as yourself; I sincerely hope that I am capable of living up to your expectations. I look forward to working with you in the future, and conversing with you again. Once again, thank you! Best regards, --] | ] ] ] 02:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| | | |||
| == Medcom == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Dispute_over_style_in_Star_Wars_articles theres the subpage in case you forgot. ]]] (]) 01:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Landmark and NPOV == | |||
| Hi Ed- I'd like your advice over the long running POV battles on the Landmark Education page. There have been a number of edits over the past month or so by myself and others with the intention of restoring neutality and eliminating much of the clutter and repetition. Today Pedant17 has waded in and made a vast array of changes which appear to me to be flagrant violations of the NPOV policy and stylistic guidelines. He even removed the paragraph which you said on the discussion page was an informative summary of what the courses offer. | |||
| I'd welcome your assessment of the neutrality of these latest edits, and your advice on whether it is now time to take this to the arbitration procedures. Thanks] 17:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Talk to RedWolf24 first. Mediation could be your answer. ] 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Just Wondering == | |||
| I realize you're under no obligation to do so, but could you please stop displaying these brainwash-y sounding quotes of your reverend messiah? It's kind of creepy, | |||
| now I have no desire to stamp on your freedom of expression, but I'm sure you can find some less brainwash-y stuff to stick on your user page, you know, a little less of the whole "''the Jews and Arabs must convert to Unification or die''" stuff, because it's not only that it’s outright creepy, but the timing of it, and the way you cycle your quotes, almost makes it look right you waited right until Yom Kippur to stick something inflammatory on your page--] 22:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You're under no obligation to do so, but would you please stop visiting my user page? It doesn't even show up on recent changes when the thought of the day changes, so why are you showing up to look at it? Hmm, I guess I should have said something nicer back.... ] 23:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps you're not very farmiliar with the way the encyclopedia works, when you edit articles or talk pages and type this <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>, it creates a signature, which in most cases provides a link from the article you've edited, to your own user page--] 00:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Don't worry, I'm sure someday the jewish people will see the light, and we will finally renounce our sinfull ways, after all, the Unificationists are the first group to *''ever''* have a problem with Jews, I mean common, nobody ''ever'' tries to convert ''us'', your religion is ''sooo'' origional--] 00:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Revert on Jack Sarfatti article == | == Revert on Jack Sarfatti article == | ||
| Line 420: | Line 25: | ||
| Please help me to craft a fair and neutral article. Please do not abuse the system to destroy or subvert the system. ] 16:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | Please help me to craft a fair and neutral article. Please do not abuse the system to destroy or subvert the system. ] 16:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ==I quit== | ==I quit== | ||
Revision as of 19:08, 13 October 2005
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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: .
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)
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.
Don't go
Don't go, Ed. Please. You're held in high regard by many Wikipedians. Ann Heneghan 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 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 | WS 18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)