This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The sun and the moon (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 13 October 2005 (→Don't go). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:09, 13 October 2005 by The sun and the moon (talk | contribs) (→Don't go)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- Funny how every time Ed 'quits' he removes all critism of himself from his user talk page, then just goes on to edit as if nothing ever happened--Armen Schrikken 19:09, 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)