Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 11:57, 24 September 2005 (→Boston Mondays...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I've archived this page so many times that I've lost track. Sorry to have beeen so sloppy. Template:DecemberCalendar2005

• Archive 10

Mediation proposal

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Proposed. It's not quite done yet, but let me describe the changes and my ideas for streamlining the process:

1. Every mediator will have an office (similar to the desks used at the cleanup taskforce), at User:MEDIATOR/Office. This is where he will place all the current mediation.
2. Every mediation case will be on a subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/PARTY 1 and PARTY 2. Thus, we can just put {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/...}} on the WP:RfM page and in the mediator's office.
3. Each case must first be approved by a mediator. Both parties MUST have agreed to mediation, as I beleive it's fruitless to mediate if one party is unwilling to settle their differences. Only a brief summary, without diffs or links to pages, will be accepted before the case is approved. The case may also be rejected or referred to the arbcom. In addition, both parties MUST agree to the goals of the mediation. (Again, I feel it's fruitless to mediate if both parties don't know what they are negotiating for)
4. Once approved, the next mediator without a case will take the assignment. The current mediator's task will have to be replaced (I haven't done it yet, will do soon at a proposed template). In other words, the task will automatically move to a open office. If there are several open offices, it will go to the one open the longest. If there are no open offices, it will go to one with the least cases/longest time on a case. Thus, there will be no "picking and choosing" of cases, streamlining the process. (An exception will be made if a mediator is involved).
5. Then the mediator will work with the parties... this is the actual mediation part.
6. The case can then be closed by the mediator- if both parties have met the goals, then the case is successful. Otherwise, the mediator can dismiss the case or recommend it to the arbcom.

I hope that makes sense; the proposed page isn't completely done yet. I'll fix it up when I have time. Let me know what you think. I'll put "apply" for mediatorship soon, and I'll try and garner some "publicity" for the revised RfM, if you agree with my proposed changes. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, especially if you can do all the formatting. It looks like hours and hours of work just to tidy up RFM. And I'm sure you'll be a good mediator. Please RFM your self, if no one's done it already. Uncle Ed 01:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel Simon/Gavin the Chosen

Slim, Ed,

I have been following the situation with Gabriel, editing now as Gavin the Chosen, for some time, although I have generally tried to keep my mouth shut about it lately--as far as I can tell, he has never listened to a single piece of advice I have tried to give him. By August 9, the two of you had agreed to take on a kind of mentor/monitor role with respect to Gabriel, giving him carrots and sticks as appropriate.

Let me say that I'm grateful to have veteran administrators here like the two of you; I've learned a lot from your behavior and writings as this episode has unfolded and hope to be able to use those lessons in my future work with the encyclopedia.

That said, however, I think it's time we should all consider whether this arrangement is working. I am going to suggest that it is not.

Gabriel has been blocked six times in less than three weeks. And all of them for the most fundamental things, in particular, violating the 3RR. He continues to make excuses, blame everyone else, and, frankly, shows no sign that I can see of wanting to become a better editor. He wants his changes to stick, sure, and he wants to avoid blocks, but he doesn't want to understand why editors are rejecting his changes and why he is getting in trouble. He is basically doing the same kinds of things today that he was doing months ago.

As I said, I am deeply impressed by the time and effort you have both put in to tutoring Gabriel. But how many last chances is he going to get? Slim, let me remind you of what you said back on August 9: "I've told him this is very much his last chance. He's been given a lot of slack, and I think he deserves a chance to create a new account and a fresh start, but if the old behavior returns, then I would say he's used up all his chances." There are many other editors, and many other readers besides Gabriel. They all deserve consideration as well. If, after all this time, Gabriel can't even learn to hew to the simple letter of 3RR, is there really any hope for his improvement?

At the minimum, I think it is time to say that the August 9 arrangement has failed. Six blocks have to equal one "last chance." I truly think that he should be blocked pending the outcome of his arbitration case--and, given his use of sockpuppets in the past, probably his IP should be blocked as well. If this is too harsh, I think the terms of his "mentorship" should at least be strengthened to include the following: (a) adherence to a one revert rule, (b) no editing at all to a small list of pages where he has gotten into trouble in the past and seems only to cause disruption and waste the time of other editors, and (c) minimum block duration of 72 hours, as the last six 24 or 48 hour blocks have not done the trick.

I am a very new editor at Misplaced Pages; I understand that I have a lot to learn about the best way to do things around here. I hope you will take the time to discuss with me if you think I am off base here, and I sincerely thank you for your time in reading this message.

Yours,

Craig --Craigkbryant 04:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It only works if people let me know about problems. I'm not a babysitter. I've asked people to seek out me or SlimVirgin if they have any problems with Gabriel - in case dealing with him directly doesn't work.

This is an experiment in management, and I'm hoping that other editors will abandon the either/or mentality which welcomes all contributions up to a certain point and then seeks a permanent ban when that fails.

Please leave messages here on my user talk page if you see anything which requires my attention. Uncle Ed 15:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Question about Unification Church teaching

Hello, Ed. I was looking at the article Homosexuality and Christianity, and I saw the following: "The Unification Church views homosexuality as sinful." Is that true? The reason I ask is that the same claim is frequently made about the Catholic Church, and is definitely not accurate. The Catholic Church regards homosexual acts as sinful, and also the deliberate indulging in homosexual fantasies. However, according to Catholic teaching, there is absolutely no sin involved in being homosexual. I wondered if that article needs clarification, or is it accurate? Thanks. Ann Heneghan 23:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see the distinction. Are there are articles which clarify the disinction between "being homosexual" and "doing homosexual acts"?

I thought it was just gay rights rhetoric to claim that there's a distinction. In fact, I've long noticed that a hallmark of both homosexuals and communists is their deliberately confusing rhetoric. For example, advocates of communism like to start their rants by saying that there are no communist countries: blurring the distinction between (1) Marxism-Leninism (the doctrine); (2) Communist-party ruled countries, like USSR, China, Cuba, etc.; (3) the classless society which the theory (see #1) predicts will come after the "withering away" of socialism.

And please provide references for a definitive statement from the R.C. Church that there is "absolutely no sin involved in being homosexual". I've heard that before from pro-homosexuality advocates, but they always decline to provide a source; they seem to think I'll simply take their word for it and/or assume that it's common knowledge.

By the way, the link to homosexual act is red because gay rights activists here at Misplaced Pages refuse to allow the term homosexual act to refer to boy-boy sex or girl-girl sex. It's part of a campaign to redefine homosexuality to make it seem okay. And apparently it's working rather well in the English-speaking world. Uncle Ed 01:15, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic Church does embrace a nuanced position: "he particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." Essentially, they have accepted that an inclination towards homosexual behavior is not in itself sinful (just as an inclination to gamble or an inclination towards gluttony are not in themselves sins), and that such inclinations may be outside of a person's control; however any overt indulgence in homosexual behavior is inherently sinful. The underlying doctrine is basically one of the balance between irrational temptation and free will. Being tempted with sinful desires is not itself sinful as it is outside an individual's control, but if someone ever ceases to resist those temptations which they know to be evil then it becomes sinful because we are all given a choice of how to behave. Dragons flight 01:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; this may duplicate some of Dragons flight's material) In general I try to avoid being involved in gay rights issues at Misplaced Pages, but I'll weigh in. Some religious groups distinguish between sexual preference, lifestyle choice, and sexual acts. For example, there are some gay Catholic men in the BDSM lifestyle who are (technically) chaste and accepted by the church. In general, the Catholic teaching is that homosexual people must bear a burden of celibacy in order to remain in the church. Some sexologists and, particularly, bisexual men also distinguish between preference and sexual acts. In the case of bisexual people, there are no bisexual acts per se, only a pattern of bisexual behavior over time. Many in the mainstream gay community believe that these are artificial distinctions, in part because they see bisexual people as being in denial of their true homosexual nature. Others, such as the United Church of Christ of which I am a member, do not see homosexual preferences, lifestyles, behaviors, or acts as sinful or otherwise problematic and so do not see any pressing need to distinguish among them.

I see no reason why we shouldn't have an article to explain all this. There is no deletion history at homosexual act so whatever discussion may have taken place in the past is now stale.

You asked for a cite on the Catholic position and I will give you one: However, the bishops go on to express tactfully, but clearly the Church's teaching that "homosexual activity, as distinguished from homosexual orientation, is morally wrong" (Human Sexuality, 55). While the gay or lesbian orientation is not morally wrong (nor freely chosen), a homosexual person is not thereby free to engage in genital sexual activity with persons of the same sex., , with extensive further sources based on official documents available in that document's footnotes. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, you two. I realize that a distinction may need to be made between the adjective sinful and the noun sin. In my church, it matters less than in the more well-known Catholic Church which we're all using as a base or reference point here. (I assume we all agree that we're not debating what is really so about homosexuality but confining ourselves to what churches teach.)

The reference DF supplied seems most authoritative, having been approved by the pope:

...the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4). In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER (emphasis added for talk page discussion)

I read the entire reference, and it:

1. utterly condemns homosexual acts ("same-sex sex", as we call it here in Misplaced Pages)
2. strongly disapproves of homosexual desires
3. criticizes people who distort the RC teachings on homosexuality
4. warns, nonetheless, against gay-bashing
5. recommends repentance for "homosexual persons"

Here the church makes a distinction between:

• inclinations, thoughts and desires - which can lead one to a deed
• actions themselves - which if they violate God's law (as RC doctrine defines it) can be sins

My own church, on the other hand, emphasizes more the "relationship with Satan" which is created by performing an evil action. That is, sin is to be condemned because it makes you sinful. It is the state of being "evil" which is most to be avoided, yes, even more than any particular "evil act".

This is because they is no reward or punishment system based on an evaluation of deeds. No pitchforks, no red-suited devils, no lakes of fire. All that matters is how well one can "breathe" the love of God.

In sum, the Unification Church condemns homosexuality as sinful because it pulls the practitioner away from God. It agrees with the Roman Catholic Church that to indulge in homosexual acts (boy-boy or girl-girl sex) is "selfish". Doing (or even longing to do) selfish things pulls one away from God, which leads to your own unhappiness - and that is why God wants you to avoid selfishness. We should all be more like Jimbo and dedicate ourselves to benefiting the public. Uncle Ed 04:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Ed, thanks for your reply. Catholic teaching on the distinction between those who the inclination and the act can be found:

• Section I.4 of this document
• 2357-2359 of the catechism
• Section VIII of Persona Humana
• Section 3 of this letter.

The last-mentioned document is particularly interesting in that it says:

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

I once heard a priest say that some chaste homosexual people are closer to God than they would have been if they were heterosexual, becuase they realize how much they need him.

You changed your (presumably rhetorical) question about whether it's okay to be a murderer as long as you don't murder anyone — but I had already seen it. I presume that you couldn't be a murderer unless you were at least planning to murder someone. If you were strugging valiantly against a temptation, that wouldn't make you a murderer. However, I would see the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" as meaning that you're sexually attracted to members of your own sex or members of the opposite sex. After all, young Christian couples who are engaged, but who believe in abstinence before marriage, don't have to wait until their wedding night to say that they are heterosexual, so I think someone who was attracted to members of his or her own sex, and who prayed and struggled and didn't give in to temptations would still be homosexual, even without engaging in the acts.

In the same way, the Catholic Church forbids adultery. But if a man is in love with a woman who marries someone else, and if he's decent and honourable, and goes away to try to forget her, but continues to love her, the Catholic Church would not consider him to be an adulterer. (Of course the Church wouldn't consider it acceptable for the man to deliberately fantasize about this woman.) So yes, we make a distinction between temptations and acts.

Obviously Misplaced Pages is not the place to discuss which Church is right — even on talk pages. But I think it's important to be clear on what each Church actually teaches. I'm now wondering if I was mistaken to make this edit last week.

Thanks for your help on the Terri Schiavo page. I hope things stay calm. I have some big assignments to do this month, and exams next month, so I may not be contributing much. Ann Heneghan 12:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Proposed

I've fixed up the proposed page (mainly the "to-do" taskbar to the right), and I've re-formatted the how-to-start a case thing you commented about. Any other comments or suggestions? I'll put in a request for mediatorship right now, and I'll inform all the other mediators and Jimbo of the proposed changes. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ed, I saw Flcelloguy's work on mediation process, and that you encouraged him to do it. I appreciate his ability to write, and think that in time it'll come to be useful, I don't agree with any of the changes to process. I think our current rules are sufficient, provided that, as mediation head, you manage distributing cases to mediators when those involved in the dispute don't do so themselves. I find the deeper process changes involved to be problematic and imposing unneeded structure. If you feel that changes are needed to mediation, we should probably restart the process to hold a gathering of mediators on IRC first. I'm not sure if you were a mediator at the time or not, but we once were quite close to having a meeting before some people made a stink that not every single mediator would be able to attend, despite a lot of effort that I and other people put into getting the best time and most people we could, and even getting Jimbo's intent to attend. --Improv 18:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, if we're going to discuss mediation reforms, how about merging the mediation committee with the mediation cabal? *smiles innocently* Kim Bruning 19:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The new Ed Poor: Go easy on Trollderella

In light of your vow to be more community-minded in your actions I think you may want to review the RfC on Trollderella and your action on it. If anything, there's consensus for allowing the username. --fvw* 03:15, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think that User:Trollderella has a right to her/his name. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for registering your disagreement with Misplaced Pages policy or usernames employed by project volunteers. Feel free to drum up a consensus to change this policy. 04:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for misinterpreting policy again. Oh, but there's IAR! Do what you want! Piss off who you want! --SPUI (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Another classic case of a renegade admin, acting unilaterally against community concensus. These people (many others spring to mind) should be reprimanded more effectively than having a few tut-tut comments posted on their talk page. Which responsible admin Bureaucrat is going to stand up and reinstate Trolderella's name as being generally acceptable in line with the concensus on the RfC? --63.239.116.254 06:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure ordinary admins can't do that, we don't have the technical ability. Everyking 08:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, so Mr Poor must be a Bureaucrat I assume. My edit above amended accordingly, thanks. --63.239.116.254 08:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I object to your change of this user's name. The policy says: " should only take action if their judgement is that a "rough consensus" has arisen that the username is inappropriate." There was no such consensus; in fact, the majority believed the name was OK. — Matt Crypto 07:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I just found the following on your user page: "I will no longer do zany or arrogant things like delete a major project page or defy consensus on a vote. Nor will I claim a right to "decide" such things; when it's close I will consult the others, abide by the consensus and let others make the final move.". That would be a good thing for you to have stuck to. — Matt Crypto 07:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus (11 in favour vs. 2 against) towards keeping Trollderella's name as it is. Furthermore, Trollderella him/herself has requested to be reverted back to his/her original username. Therefore, the renegade rename of the user was completely uncalled-for. If this continues, a RfC should probably be filed for Ed Poor instead of Trollderella. — JIP | Talk 08:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I take back part of the comment. User:Trollderella has requested to revert Trollderella's name back. But as this user's first contribution was today, I think he/she may be a different user entirely. — JIP | Talk 08:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

How can that be? How can a new user register the same name as a renamed user? --63.239.116.254 09:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't ask me. But if you check the history for User:Trollderella, you can see that it has had two edits, the most recent of which is by someone whose first contribution is today. Seeing as Trollderella's original talk page is now at User talk:EnduranceFan, I doubt it's the same user. Could a Misplaced Pages Bureucrat, Developer or other High God please clarify? — JIP | Talk 09:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Utterly bizarre. The edit history indicates that Ed Poor placed a redirect to User:EnduranceFan at 00:31. So the 'new' Trollderella should not have been able to register a new account with that name and subsequently revert it, or the user page at 05:06. High Gods required as you say. --63.239.116.254 10:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me from that the redirects were put in place, but not the actual name change enforcement :-). Trollderella is probably still alive and well and can post with gusto. Vive la Trollderella. --63.239.116.254 10:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

HEC and 3RR

Schoud this sentence Don't revert more than once on WP:HEC be interpreted as on WP:3RR#Intent of the policy? Alx-pl D 13:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

What's your point? I read both pages and don't see any discrepancy. Moreover, one is policy and the other is a nice wish (my own personal wish, with precious little support from others, I might add). Uncle Ed 14:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I strongly support the idea of peaceful editing on which HEC is based. In fact, I applied its ideas in a few disputes that I took part in on Polish Misplaced Pages. Now that most of my activities in here on the English one I decided to join HEC. I just want to learn what precisely the rules of the club mean just in order not to be blamed for breaking them. And in fact the description on WP:3RR looked like a more specific description of what's in WP:HEC to me. Now, I understand that Don't revert more than once means that I cannot revert a particular article more than once when a particular phrase or issue is in question. This means that I can (in good faith) revert the very same article when another issue (e.g. three paras farther) is in question. Am I right? Alx-pl D 16:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Directed to Ed, but Ed's pretty busy and I think he already answered your question -- perhaps. Let me take a stab at it. WP:3RR is policy -- which doesn't mean much more than to say that it has broad support from the whole Community. WP:HEC is not even quite a policy proposal -- it is a voluntary association of like-minded members who choose to adhere to certain standards of conduct.

There is very little formal structure within our Community. People pretty much do as they please, which includes punishing others for various reasons (or none at all) -- and, obviously, includes punishing those self-appointed guardians of Right on occasion. But all our policies are subject to edit and there are no fixed rules. However -- very important -- many of our policies are of such long standing and enjoy such broad support that any attempt to edit or violate them risks Community displeasure. WP:3RR is one such -- taken very seriously. Your second revert in a day invites a warning; your third practically guarantees a block.

WP:HEC, of much less seniority and enjoying very little broad support, carries little weight. Outside HEC itself (almost by definition) it carries none. If you are a member and you violate what other members perceive to be their standards, perhaps Somebody will remove you from HEC membership. I can't say. You can't really compare one to the other.

Your comment does sound like somebody honestly seeking guidance, so I will tell you what I think -- which is worth exactly one editors's opinion. Don't revert at all unless either you have made a good-faith effort to contact the other editor, or you are totally and honestly convinced of the other editor's utter, butt-headed stupidity and/or bad faith. This is my personal policy. — Xiong熊talk* 20:57, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers :-) Alx-pl D 21:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Renaming request

Hi Ed - I noticed that my username change request was skipped over in favor of a user who made a request after mine. Does this mean my request going to be rejected or can I expect it soon? Thanks! —Charles O'Rourke 14:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

It just means I did the easiest ones first. You're next, I think. Uncle Ed 14:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon arbitration

Please make any comment you think appropriate at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Workshop#Ed_Poor.2C_Mentor Fred Bauder 16:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

A little support, for a change

Well, you're probably not used to me being complimentary towards you, but I wanted to give you a little support for your decision to change Trollderella's username. It was a blatantly inappropriate name, particularly for someone who frequents areas as controversial as VfD. All the best.--Scimitar 17:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I've read more and maybe it wasn't such a great idea to change it after all. I think it's troubling that there must be a consensus that a username is inappropriate- we shouldn't force people to change names on the weight of numbers but rather based on a little discernment of Misplaced Pages policy. Oh well- I'm sure your intentions were good.--Scimitar 17:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

additional support requested for recent edits I've made in re Schiavo, now a Fac

additional support requested for recent edits I've made in re Schiavo, now a Fac

please see e.g., talk & article -I've worked over 12 hours today, with few breaks, and I am trying to whip Schiavo into shape to be a Featured Article --Mark, the Fac editor is working with us, but your support is needed -Wagon is generally behaving himself and contributing quote well, but the "sparked debate" sentence is a mojor problem to him, and I suppose a few controversial edits I've made to news storys I'V written will attract attention, but in one case at least, my paper was the ONLY news organization to cover one set of oral arguments. Your help is needed if you can (A) find time, and (B) be gentle with any of my crazy opponents. THX.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Anne says the atmosphere has improved. Do you need me as a Mediator, or what? Uncle Ed 20:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Just now saw your reply. What a nin-com-poop I was to miss a reply. (I thought I had that "watchlist" thing down pat!) Anyhow, things are cooled down, but a perfectly good page failed a Featured Articla nomonation, and while I could renominate it, maybe it would seem less objective and more "I was right" --even if I was right. Anyone that likes the Terri Schiavo article can nominate it, or --should I say, renominate it, eh, he heh...--GordonWattsDotCom 23:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Trollderella

Please don't take my posting this at RFAr as an attack against you (and I'm not saying that you did). I personally don't care either way about the issue, but I felt the ArbCom should take it into account. Whether they consider it a good upholding of policy or a bad ignoring of consensus, or neither, is entirely up to them. My opinion is the third one. Radiant_>|< 17:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am nothing more than the servant of the community. Share your wisdom with me, oh master, and help me grow. Uncle Ed 22:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Phroziac's RFA

By the way, I'm up on WP:RFA, Ed. :D --Phroziac 21:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know

Somebody's been sticking this: I am a Unificationist, a follower of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. ..on your user:page, and they're pretty persistant, you might want to warn them off, or give them a short block or something else--64.12.116.6 22:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

<large>LOL!</large> Thanks, these days I could use a good laugh. (You get one free un-block for that; now go vandalize the page of your choice! ;-) humorless disclaimer --Uncle Ed 22:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

User:62.135.93.11

Why did you block 62.135.93.11 (talk · contribs · block log)? The user had only been warned once and only had two edits. According to WP:BP, 'Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism.' - ulayiti (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I feel vandals should always be given a 'second chance' to see if they're willing to come round and become responsible editors. Maybe this particular user is best left blocked though. I'm not an admin by the way. - ulayiti (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It was only a 1-hour block. It will expire in about 30 minutes, okay?

re consensus

Ed, your front page motto strikes me. Let's say over at Hubberts peak theory that there is no consensus for the doomsday Y4K-ist chicken little pseudo science - but also there is no consensus for wiping the slate clean - so how is a rational medium achieved, if the status quo gets the benefit of chaos? in other words. why would a non-consensus for the current irrational pessimism trump a non-consensus for a more neutral perspective? I'd just like to hear you explain how everything can be by consensus, and yet there exists article for which there clearly isn't consensus? Benjamin Gatti

I was quoting somebody else - mostly to lampoon the notion that we can run this madhouse without some sort of parliamentary procedure. The idea that "consensus" can be determined without voting is patent nonsense, and you and I pay royalties on that patent every time we edit an article. As long is this is an open wiki, articles will reach stability only when nobody disagrees enough with them to revert the last change. You have to pre-emptively satisfy the POV-pushers; good luck doing it! Uncle Ed 19:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

lol - well i'm glad somebody asked, and i was sure you had an answer - unsure you had the time. thanx always. Benjamin Gatti

BN

Sounds like a good idea, but I would reformat BN (Bureaucrat's Noticeboard) into a more efficient format. Otherwise...nice! — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Usability discussion?

Hello Ed,

I was talking to some people about usability guidelines for new interfaces ideas and for new views of WP content. Are you interested in such things? This isn't directly related to topical quality control, but tangential to it... +sj + 02:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, anything beats fighting with miscreants. Count me in. Uncle Ed 02:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Request for Adminship

I don't want to appear to be drumming up votes, so please don't read this as that. A short while ago, you offered to RfA me, and I declined at the time. Kim has since nominated me, and I'd appreciate a comment from you on the page. Thanks. Rob Church 09:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Please reverse your changes

There appears to be an overwhelming community consensus that User:Trollderella's name change should be undone. Will you please reconsider and reverse your actions? A poll exists at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Trollderella#Poll_to_resolve_dispute. Hall Monitor 16:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

When does the poll close, and is the usual 80% going to be the determiner, and is it only about the idea that the name change should be undone? Uncle Ed 11:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've suggested a poll closure on the 8th, giving a week of open poll. 80% works, I guess, though I expect you'll draw further criticism if no action happens at, say, 78%, since many of the supporters claim you violated consensus in the first place. As for "only" about the idea of the name change -- could you clarify? I guess the other option would be considering the poll a referendum on how name changes are conducted generally, but it'd be nice to get that spelled out. Anyway, "only the name change" is fine with me personally. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article Drive: Meeting (3rd September 2005)

This is a reminder that there will be a meeting of the Featured Article Drive team this evening at 20:00 GMT in our IRC channel on Freenode.

• To check what time 20:00 GMT is in your time zone, please see http://tinyurl.com/dclhr
• If you are unable to make the meeting, please let me know, and I will ensure that a link to the log is sent to you afterwards

With thanks, Rob Church 15:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

1RR

You just created Misplaced Pages:One Revert Rule. In the process of cleaning it up, I stumbled upon Misplaced Pages:One-revert rule. It's longer and more well-formed. And, incidentally, it was created by this guy named Ed Poor back in January. Is this a case of the old-timer getting a little senile, or was there some reason for it (in which case you are free to revet the redir I put there instead)? :) Dmcdevit·t 03:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

A merge is requested. Thanks for the catch. Uncle Ed 04:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Look more carefully: Because User:68.6.25.249 vandalized the page twice. Then the user asked silly how was the page vandalized. Please look on your own work and do not wrote to other users with bad advise. --ThomasK 11:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

James Dean

The problem is that User:Wyss and User:Ted Wilkes are frequently denigrating every source which supports my view that James Dean had homosexual leanings and is not in line with their opinion. I think this is not fair play. For instance, referring to Gavin Lambert's Wood biography, they have added, "but this book has been described as 'high class gossip.'" in order to disparage this source which clearly says that Dean was bisexual. Here is the original text from the Guardian review: "For bitchy, witty and perceptive high-class gossip about Hollywood, there was no better source." This sounds somewhat different. See It should also be noted that Publishers Weekly has a very positive review of Lambert's Wood biography saying that the author

follows her (Wood) from such childhood triumphs as Miracle on 34th Street to her breakthrough adult part opposite James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause. ... Lambert reveals deep sensitivity and understanding of her development as an actress, and he's one of the few authors to capture the depth and beauty of her relationship with Robert Wagner. Lambert also effectively highlights Wood's shrewd professional moves, including her pretense to boss Jack Warner that she didn't want to star in Splendor in the Grass ... Lambert eloquently clarifies the self-destructive reasons behind Wood's addictions and insecurities, and in the end, readers will feel they truly know the subject more than they do in most biographies."

The book was also praised by Natalie Wood's daughter, Natasha Gregson Wagner, as

a wonderful biography on my Mom ... that we are all involved with - everybody that knew my Mom and was close to her ... It will be the definitive biography on my Mother.

Film historian Professor Joseph McBride writes,

The novelist, screenwriter, and biographer Gavin Lambert, a British expatriate who has lived in Los Angeles since the 1950s, is a keenly observant, wryly witty chronicler of Hollywood's social mores and artistic achievements.

If Lambert, himself part of the gay circles in Hollywood at that time, states that James Dean was bisexual, he certainly must be accepted as a first-class source of reference, although Wyss and Ted Wilkes do not like the idea that some Hollywood stars may have had homosexual leanings. I do not understand what should be wrong with this fact. Wyss has further changed the original text which says,

In Val Holley's James Dean: the Biography (1997) gay studies scholars will also find rich factual evidence of Dean's homosexual social life, and of the crucial role gay patrons like Rogers Brackett played in Dean's rise to stardom

to the biased version,

Val Holley's James Dean: the Biography (1997) also describes purported homosexual encounters and relationships.

Query: if you compare the different versions of the paragraph (see and ): which one is more POV? Perhaps an administrator can rewrite the whole passage. Onefortyone 12:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Try this formula: X said Y about Z. Uncle Ed 12:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am sure that my opponents will frequently delete this formula, as they repeatedly did in the past. This is a real problem, as I am regularly citing my sources. Onefortyone 16:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley

Dear Ed, as you have recommended, I have now created a new article on Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley. As it is a fact that these claims exist, I think it is a fair compromise to exclude this material from the main article and put it in this new article. Would you please add a link to this new page in the "Relationships" section of the article on Elvis Presley which is still protected. Thank you. Onefortyone 16:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest anyone attempting to mediate or edit this page read the entire talk page archives for Nick Adams along with the last three months of Elvis Presley before attempting any interaction with either article, or this new one created by 141, which was immediately nominated for VfD by someone uninvolved with any of the articles. Wyss 17:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have now found another published source which states that Elvis had homosexual relationships. In his book, The Boy who would be King: An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by his Cousin (1990), Earl Greenwood, Elvis's second cousin who paled around with Elvis for many years before and after his success, says that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams.

From the review in the Library Journal (by David M. Turkalo, Social Law Lib., Boston):

Having literally grown up with Elvis Presley in Tupelo and Memphis, Greenwood also served his cousin for some years as his press agent, claiming a front-row seat for the best and the worst of rock music's late king. As with so much written about him, this book is simultaneously interesting and lurid and often the former because it is the latter. But its saving grace, in addition to being well written, is Greenwood's closeness to Presley, rendering this an eyewitness account (the first ever by a blood relative) to the formative childhood years and the inner workings of the Presley family that played such a large part in the musician's personality development. Revelatory and credible in these and other areas, but never descending to either blathering idolatry or merciless crucifixion (a la Albert Goldman), this fast-paced, no-white-wash look at the rock icon will surely find an audience among the millions for whom Elvis Presley still holds fascination. Previewed in Prepub Alert, LJ 5/15/90.

Onefortyone 22:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFM removed

Hi, I'm curious about why you removed my request for mediation. The disagreement concerns WP:RFC, and you said yourself that the instructions are confusing. Maurreen (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I've cleared out all the pending requests. If you and another party still seek mediation, please re-add your request. Sorry for the trouble. Uncle Ed 14:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

pmam21's RfA

Err... you just closed pmam21's RfA less than 14 hours after it was started. Any particular reason for this? - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 01:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It was marked with the wrong closing date. Someone has reopened it now though, so all's well that hasn't ended yet. --fvw* 01:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Reason: total stupidity. It's been corrected. Uncle Ed 01:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's too late! He's already left the project and I've been de'bopped over this. :-( Uncle Ed 01:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

User 80.202.195.62

Can you take a look at the edits by this user. He changed the Cheetah article to say that the Norweigan coat of arms has a cheetah on it but it's a lion. I thsn looked at some of his other edits. They look odd but I cna't really tell. Jolly Cola was a redirect to Denmark but is now an article about a Norwegian cola. Thanks CambridgeBayWeather 13:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest doing a Google search to confirm the type of animal shown on the Norwegian coat of arms.

And let's look together at 80.202.195.62 (talk · contribs · block log).

I see you changed the cheetah reference. The Linda Evans is legit as her proper name is Evanstad which is Norwegian. The cola one has no listings in Google as "jolly cola norway" but four as "jolly cola denmark". There is a Lærdal company but they are a medical company. CambridgeBayWeather 22:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Question

(I'm copying my answer from the help desk as you requested:) We have a handy template for it {{purge}}. All you have to do is add something like {{purge|Purge this page's server cache}} Dmcdevit·t 21:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Uncle Ed 21:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Radiant v. Xiong

Radiant has already agred to mediation, but I will ask them both to agree again. Robert McClenon 21:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Radiant v. Xiong

Radiant has already agred to mediation, but I will ask them both to agree again. Robert McClenon 21:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Armenian Genocide

People are being quite unreasonable. Got time for a peer review? --Cool Cat 19:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. You have bitten off more than you can chew. Try editing an easier article. Or list your top 5 concerns here - bullet points, no more than 10 words each. Uncle Ed 03:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant issues

William M. Connolley has continually ignored Wikpedia policies and guidelines. Inparticular:

• Misplaced Pages:Cite sources,
• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
• Misplaced Pages:No original research (inparticular "What is excluded from articles?" and "How to deal with Misplaced Pages entries about theories"), and
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

The section on the speculation of operation of the Ark of the Covenant is being removed repeatedly. The theories are cited and referenced. Many are from reputable sources. The concept is dealt with in a NPOV fashion.

What can I do about this? I am @ a lost about what to do about this. A response here or @ my talk page would be appreciated. Thank you, Sincerely, JDR 20:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not violating the 3RR rule would be a nice start, I think. Reddi continues to ignore the rule "please don't insert fairy stories into serious articles". He is a Tesla-phile, and is responsible for all too much quackery and psuedo-science (you'll note the characteristic refs to Tesla in the Ark article). Don't trust my view of that/ How about Tim Starlings, then?. Happily, User:Jayjg seems to agree with me (at least over the article content question). William M. Connolley 20:41:59, 2005-09-06 (UTC).

Attacking me does nothing to the point that the information is from reputable references.

Ignoring Misplaced Pages:Cite sources, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research ("What is excluded from articles?" and "How to deal with Misplaced Pages entries about theories"), and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. by you, Jdavidb, and Jayjg does nothing for the article. JDR 20:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (BTW, the Starling thing is ancient; you seem to not know that.)

Reddi sez: BTW, on how notable this topic is ... it is in David Hatcher Childress's "Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients". You couldn't make it up. William M. Connolley 21:30:11, 2005-09-06 (UTC).

Why is this here? Shouldn't it be an RFC? Uncle Ed 03:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect Terri Schiavo

Uncle Ed, pursuant to your former request ("Anne says the atmosphere has improved. Do you need me as a Mediator, or what? Uncle Ed 20:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)"), and in consideration that a dispute over this article has degenerated into an edit war, please view this article's talk page here for details and take appropriate action.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

The arbitration Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor has been accepted, please place any relevant evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Evidence and participate in discussions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Workshop. Fred Bauder 16:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Image:PeaceGardenCropped.jpg has been listed for deletion

Hubberts (and others) peak theory

Ed, We have consensus to move the article to "Peak oil" but because of the redirect snarl, it won't move. Is this something you can help us with? Benjamin Gatti 18:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made a bureaucrat! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Misplaced Pages:Tools#Navigation_popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Ed Poor/monobook.js:

// ] - please include this line 
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
popupAdminLinks=true;

Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin 02:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

World War III has broken out in Terri Schiavo's home page

Ed,

All hell has broken out @ Terri Schiavo, page lock included, but I wonder if you are in too much deep doo doo yourself to help someone else.

Your help is needed -if you can offer it...--GordonWattsDotCom 22:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Kudos

Hey Ed,

I wanted to take a minute to give you some props for being relatively NPOV in your work on the Moon article. I am not a UC member, but I appreciate your work and especially your comments on the article discussion page. I appreciate especially your reasonability on a subject in which it is almost impossible for you to work as NPOV. Though I must agree somewhat with mrognlie (incidentally, was she/he banned or something? Just curious) in that the article does seem to have a bit of a hero worship aura around it, that is often very difficult to avoid in a biographical article. And of course, you are not the only person editing the article, so I certainly cannot place the whole of any blame that might exist on you. Overall, good work. :D Cromwellt | Talk 22:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Considering that as his follower I think of him as having heroic stature far greater than even the fictional Aragorn, I'm amazed that I can be objective at all (in all modesty). Uncle Ed 22:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

your help is needed @ Schiavo

your help is needed at:

Talk:Terri_Schiavo and also at Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

both are time-sensitive issues; could you come and vote. Come and vote, please...?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It's funny that Gordon has come over here right as I was thinking of it. I, too am asking for help at Terri Schiavo, albeit in a different capacity.

You're the grand old man of Misplaced Pages, Ed, and you've been a mediator at this exact article before. I'm trying to informally arbitrate this current dispute, and I'd like some mentorship from you if you're willing. How have I done so far, and what should I do next, that sort of thing. If you'd rather do email or IRC for this, just let me know, although IRC is out of the question for tonight as I'm at work.

I hope you've got time to lend me some advice. Thanks, Fernando Rizo T/C 22:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I just recently was introduced to IRC last month, and I think it will work better than e-mail for this sort of thing. (Just e-mail me if you have something private to say. I'm rushing off to church right now, but I'll check again later today, New York City time.) Uncle Ed 13:35, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'll be home from work today around 7ish NY time hopefully. I'll drop a note here when I get back, and we'll try to meet up on IRC. Thanks, Ed. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I'm home from work, but I've recieved an invitation to go play basketball that I cannot refuse. As much as it pains me to say that somethings come before Misplaced Pages, it's true. ;)

I hope we can get together some time this week, I'm quite serious about wanting to learn from you. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Ed, I'm back, although I doubt you're awake given the lateness of the hour where you live. I'll be on IRC though. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your post here, Fernando, and I want to share that the one thing I learned from Uncle Ed was that we should define the dispute in bullet points and discuss it; The Schiavo talk page is hotten than a frying pan, but I've deflected mis-representations and done so in hopefully a polite way -and RE-stated the issues, asking people to -you know? -actually read what is being debated. If you and Ed are both in New York, why don't you just drop in for a visit, lol?--GordonWattsDotCom 00:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

음낭 / இ

When you renamed these accounts, did you ever talk to them about it, or for that matter explain what you had done? I can find no record of such a conversation. Dragons flight 03:59, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Terri_Schiavo#THE_Voting_Booth_on_SEVERAL_POINTS_OF_CONCERN--DISPUTE

Talk:Terri_Schiavo#THE_Voting_Booth_on_SEVERAL_POINTS_OF_CONCERN--DISPUTE--GordonWattsDotCom 22:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Mess'ge rec'd -thx for correcting proper spelling of "spirits" -- probably more apt "sprites" (as in mischievous elves) -OK, I did my part - the momentum is building - can you log in a vote foe me in RfA? Thx.--GordonWatts 03:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Uncle Ed, Please support my request for adminship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

from the talk page of the RfA:

Oppose, unless you drop the DotCom from your username. I think Admins should set a higher standard of compliance with the username policy. I wouldn't anyone to think you were promoting your personal website all over the 'pedia. Uncle Ed 13:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I accept your proposal; I will accept a transfer of edit credits to User:GordonWatts if you think that would be more becoming.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, please make an official request for a name change at Misplaced Pages:username change, and I'll be happy to run the query for you (late in the evening, when it won't be a strain on the server). Uncle Ed 20:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles I'm working on

The next two articles I'd like to write (or improve) are:

• Always - a movie about a man who shows an unusual sort of heroism
• Anyway - a book by the real author of Mother Theresa's "do good anyway" poem

Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against you has been closed without action after you resigned your bureaucrat status.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrat status removed Ed... Kisses. Anthere 03:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear this Ed. You did a wonderful job and I hope you don't leave data-sort-value="" | Ryan Norton 23:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Page move help requested

Per our agreement (I agreed to a name change) -no matter the sad state of the vote -could you move:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

to

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts ??

I coild do it, but I don't want to mess things up. Also, the current burocrat removed my name prematurely from RfA, and I think it should stay there the week. Could you replace it? I made a strong case, and I feel additional votes will come in. Thx.--GordonWatts 03:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page. Sorry it's going against you, I've rarely seen such a one-sided vote. Uncle Ed 03:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Some people like admins who sit on their hands and do nothing controversial (meaning -they do nothing productive) --Obviously, they would prefer a corpse with no edit wars in his past -like a mummy, lol? That would be a "non-controversial" admin --but a dead mummy or dracula, (or frankenstein before his "activation") ... eh? Such an admin, however, would also not be productive. (They used to let any user in good standing be an admin, but you can see from the RfA page that the standards are rising ;like a tide, IMHO -let's not get drowned by Hurricane Rising Tide.) Some of the comments -and potential votes -were positive, so your vote is not wasted; I voted my consience. (Yes, I voted for myself -everyone gets a vote.) PS: I have good rebuttals on the RfA. I did my part. That's al I can do, and I'm not even gettnig paid for this job, but I still try to be helpful.--GordonWatts 03:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Gold Barnstarwatch

Vandalism on your user page

Hello. I just reverted some vandalism on your userpage by 61.218.55.27 (history: here). Just though you'd like to know. --Blackcap | talk 07:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I too once reverted vandalism on your page a long time ago, and I looked up the IP address and asked the tech dept of the offending IP to talk to the student involved (the IP was to a colloge) -but never told you because I didn't want to post it where the vandalizer (a harmless prankster, that's all) could see it --and you didn't have an email address loaded into the email link, but I just thought I'd mention it. "No biggie."--GordonWatts 10:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No version protection

Just wanted to make you aware of a proposal at Misplaced Pages:No version protection. Basically, this calls for protecting a page on no version, aka a blank page. This is done through a template that sorta combines {{twoversions}} and {{protected}}. Please keep discussion on the talk page for the proposal, to avoid fragmentation. --Phroziac 05:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration remedy violation

Ed --

You seem to have been involved at various times in some of the nonsense related to this. Sorry for asking you to step back in. Anyway ...

I'd like to have an administrator impose a 24-hour block on Jayjg for violating the prohibition imposed by Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg that he not remove "adequately referenced information from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" for the period 16 January 2005 to 16 January 2006. Jayjg violated this prohibition repeatedly by changing Occupied Territories (Israeli) to a redirect and by removing link to this article at Occupied Territories.

Thank you.

Marsden 15:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed, you may want to review Marsden's history of reverts against community consensus in the articles before you act. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 15:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about community consensus! Uncle Ed 19:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed, just so you're aware, aside from the fact that re-directing a POV fork back to its original page is not "removing adequately referenced information from Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles", Marsden has misunderstood the Arbitration Committee ruling. There are no Arbitration Committee restrictions on my editing; see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. Jayjg 20:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to get involved in this again, so I'll just say this.

Various parties have been using terms like occupied territories as weapons in an ideological and political fight. This project, however, is an encyclopedia which should be describing these fights - not taking sides in them.

We should not, therefore, choose article titles with the purpose of endorsing any particular group's idea of "what something's real condition is" or "what its real name is" precisely because these are the points which are in contention. Rather, we should say that parties disagree over what to call the region of Palestine and describe these disagreements in Definitions of Palestine - an article I created expressly for this purpose.

And as everyone knows (but few want to mention) - whether or not Gaza and West Bank are "occupied territories" has relevance in international law. If interested parties can get sufficient endorsement for the idea that Israel is "occupying" the "Palestinian territories" this will give them the moral / legal leverage they need to force Israel to relinquish control over them.

This, they hope, will open up the way for nationalists to create (yet another?) "Palestinian state" in Palestine - in addition to Jordan, which while totally within Palestine is somehow not considered to be the sort of Palestinian state certain nationalists feel must exist to satisfy their aspirations.

None of this has anything to do with using administrative power at Misplaced Pages to force any article to make any particular point. Quite the opposite: Misplaced Pages should merely describe what the various aspirations, strategies and arguments of all the significant parties are. Perhaps the observations I've made in the paragraphs above will be of help in this. Uncle Ed 14:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Quasi-infinite loop

Hi, Ed,

I made a mistake in trying to retitle an article and now I have some links that don't work right. Do you have the right kind of access to correct what I did? The basic mistake happened when I retitled an article on Sydney funnel-web spider to Australian venomous funnel-web spiders and then realized that I had put a forbidden plural in an article title and tried to edit a redirect to make the original article title redirect to the correct article title, but I ended up with a circular reference somehow. (I know from programming that I should write all my mistakes down as I go along so I can figure out how I killed myself, but I never remember until afterwards.)

Anyway, I have Australian venomous funnel-web spiders, which is wrong by an "s" but has the correct article content, Australian venomous funnel-web spider, which doesn't have the article content, and Sydney funnel-web spider which currently redirects to the wrongly titled article.

If you can't fix this easily yourself, is there some way you could redirect it to someone who has the tools to fix the problem? I don't think I've created a big maze for anybody, but I'd like to get things straightened out.

Thanks. P0M 03:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Now I've got things arranged so that the only obvious problem is the title with the extra s -- but it's still ugly and wrong. P0M 03:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Now they're all funneling into Australian venomous funnel-web spider. Is that what you wanted? Uncle Ed 22:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you very much. P0M 05:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Your 2¢ sought: Much positive feedback for Schiavo FA-nom

Your 2¢ sought: The Terri Schiavo Featured Article nomination has made much progress and has received much positive feedback, including some from Mark (AKA →Raul654), the FA-editor: Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo. As one of the esteemed editors in that vein, I'd like you to review the FA-nom and throw in your 2¢-worth. Thx.--GordonWatts 15:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Boston Mondays...

Hi Ed, we're having regular meetups in boston; I wondered if you were planning to be down here any time soon! Jimbo will be around a bit next week, and hopefully will make our Monday meetup in the evening (at Toscanini's in Central Sq)... +sj + 00:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, that's tempting, Sj. And yet with all my involvement with the peace foundation's Encyclopedia Project, it would be hard to travel on a weekday. Maybe I should try to organize something in New York City. I mean, thanks for the invite but I'm just swamped with projects these days! Uncle Ed 11:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)