User talk:Ed Poor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 11:47, 13 May 2004 (to Cecropia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Personal

Hi Ed - just letting you know you I did try to reply to your e-mail but it bounced - twice! anyway the issue at the time seems to have gone quiet (or gone away). anyway keep up the good work! e --Erich gasboy 07:22, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Buddha

Hi Uncle Ed. Maybe you haven't noticed, but User:Buddha was only trolling, probably a sock puppet of a previously banned troll as he already knew some other users to talk with. He has been blocked indefinitely by User:Hephaestos already anyway. andy 14:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who can fight with a troll? Its stony nature is revealed in its implacable hatred for all that is good. --Ed


In the spirit of the above, I am writing to tell you of things you have done which have bothered me (though I'm not insulted):

  1. "Some advocates who do not want people to discuss the morality of homosexuality have used the technique of literary deconstruction to shut people up."
  2. Gay sex

I have a reference from an book saying that the founding fathers are reactionary. I bet if I was at a University library, I can find twenty more quotes just like that. Andy reverts with no quotes. I have another book that says the original party of monarchists in France was called the "Reactionary" Party. But Andy reverts that also. Why isn't this guy reigned in. See, if things don't pass Andy's POV and inspection he revert it out AND NEEDS NO QUOTES OR SOURCES TO DO SO. NO thanks. I see Andy had free reign here. If he reverts, He must provide quotes and sources. SITE YOUR SOURCES is WIKIPEDIAN POLICY but that is not happening. WHEELER 14:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


You know what my problem is: I never spent any amount of time in the American colleges and Universities who are filled with socialist, liberal and communist professors intent on propagandizing. I was never educated that way. That is why I am different. Mortimer Adler, Thomas Sowell, and Ayn Rand have all heavily critized American higher education as practically worthless. Is this why I am having a hard time here?WHEELER 14:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

SlRubenstein also reverted my section on the REactionary Pattern. I quote from a book written by a Rightist and a REACTIONary, a German and an Aristocrate and he deletes. He doesn't know what he is talking about. Shouldn't I know what I am talking about. Shouldn't this author know what he is talking about. SITE YOUR SOURCES before ONE"S EDIT and REVERT. Why must I do all the work. Who the heck is SlRubenstein. He is not a rightist or a Reactionary so what does he know???? I can't stand this. WHEELER 14:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)



I feel both actions were against the minimal consensus being formed, inaccurate, and possibly of poor motive. The move to gay sex is disrespectful in or outside of wikipedia, and is confusing as it indicates a gay ideology that you have disavowed. What's going on?Hyacinth 23:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Oh my, you are one scary dude! What's up with that picture of the lizard biting the bug? --Eponymous

Just a joke: a warning to vandals. --Uncle Ed 17:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

are you gay?

You edit many articles related to gay sex and gay men. are you gay? 1989Eponymous 21:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I also edit many articles related to Nazism. Do you think I'm a Nazi? --Ed
Nope, but you may be poor, as your user name suggests. 1989-Eponymous 21:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Politics

I was just reading the laughable attempts at ad hominem above, and decided to mention that from what I can see from your user page, we appear to have quite similar politics. Actually, I would almost be pressed to say we are perhaps the only two wiki's possesed of certain thoughts. Anyhow I like to say sometghing positive as often as possible, and the fellow above seemed to be welcoming a counter-point, so as to make this user talk a bit more NPOV ;) Sam Spade 22:00, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quote Typo: "....Being a relatively pacific commercial republic...." I think the United States is actually kind of a bioceanic republic.  :-) --Xinoph 22:45, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Ed,

I'm rather shocked at the number of conservative and libertarian journals and sites, and even mainstream sources that took Gregor without examining his past. It's amazing the guy ever got tenureAndyL 04:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes these journals accept opposing views, just to provide a bit of balance. Liberals are generally less tolerant. --Uncle Ed 13:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Liberal bias

(Commenting on the text on your user page.) From my Dutch point of view, it seems that the USA is not only fighting the war in Iraq, but also a worldwide propaganda war—which it may be losing. As such, the Spanish withdrawal of support is a major setback for Bush.
—Herbee 23:56, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

US military

I agree to what you said on your home page: our military's definitely better than it was, say, 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago (do the countries of Somalia and Vietnam bring anything to mind)? I may be opposed to the Iraq War in general, but there's no denying that the military handled itself very well after being thrust into the situation. ugen64 22:10, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

That is an easy conclusion to reach for a person who has not seen what is happening in the war. As long as the cameras don't show where US soldiers point their guns and who falls down when the bullet strikes, it is easy to conclude that hundreds of Iraqi deaths in early April were all the result of US troops killing insurgents. Yeh, right. And all people who have gripes with Wikipedia's fledgling administrative process that is based on name calling and character assassination are "trolls." Phsheww! US troops rolled into Bahgdad because of a breif moment in history when US forces have an edge in weapons guidance systems - primarily the M1A1's ability to fire at moving targets, using computer guided sites on the run, but also a temporary advantage in air superiority that allowed victory in open field combat. The general tactic employed is to return fire when fired upon, with soldiers instructed that whomever resists them belongs to one of several generalized categories - usually Saddam loyalists, outside agitators. It was militarily affective on the battle field, but when the US took its guns to town the tables turned. People don't appreciate seeing families murdered because a emotionally scarred young man chose their roof as a good place to launch a rocket propelled grenade.
The truth is the resistance is fueled by a growing number of people whose family members were killed by US forces often for no reason but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What makes Wikipedias current administrative style so repugnant and dangerous is that it teaches the same rules of engagement taught by US commanders - take advantage of temporary technological advantages to solidify outmoded understandings of human behavior. When opposition qualifies as unlawful by improvised battle field rules, attack everything associated with the now-unlawful contributor. Well understood aspects of human behavior have no place in occupied Iraq, nor in occupied Wikipedia. No, these battles are between good and evil, trolls and infinitely righteous admins. Discussion of psychological faults in the system, and introduction of improved rules of engagement is treated as collaboration with the enemy in both cases. We have documented numerous cases of problem-solving dialogue being deleted by leaders of this site, which we will present in other less hostile outlets.
Yeh, I have some admiration for the recent mechanical technological gains of the US military, having seen it more up close and personal than many. And I know exactly how thin is that military advantage - how emerging P4 and G5 technology can be applied to create improvised high-tech weapons even as the government blathers coverup for its "go ahead, hit me" strategy on Sept. 11. The US uses US civilians the same way it uses its troops in Iraq -- it intentionally places them in the line of fire for the purpose of identifying the source of opposition, then follows with a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" response. And the same is how the worst, most active admins work here - they participate in editorial processes, introducing often contradictory requirements (cite sources/don't cite sources, use this format/don't use this format) until an unwelcome group member is provoked to some adminstrative infraction, at which point the admins pick up their guns and begin a character assassination.
I have witnessed the criminal behavior of military personnel, which makes it so much more easy to recognize the abuse aspects of Wikipedia administration. In the same way US military leaders deny rampant off-base crime by troops, and cover up as "fog of war" on-battlefield atrocities, dominant Wikipedia admins use a "go tell it somewhere else" response that prevents most administrators from acknowledging even the substance of this concern before they go on a rampage of character assassination. i.e. - "your anonymous", "you have no reputation here hence no credibility, there is another place to write these comments so you are trolling if you post here", "you did something offensive to me two months ago so I will never trust you again", "Complainant A is really complainant B" (aka "just pockets of resistance"), etc.
And that is what wikipedia is about. As altruistic contributers are hooked by ego-manipulation into conflicts that reveal their personal proclivities, a futures trader maintains back-room access to identify contributors through technical means not available to the community as a whole and provides that information to is ultra-conservative allies for use when the insurgency inevitably comes home to roost in the United States.
While the usual knee jerk reaction of admins, Ed Poor included, is to marginalize critical analysis as "complaining" we bother to repeat these messages because eventually more mild-mannered adminstrators and future administrators may recognize the substance of the problem and help us in turnng things toward a kinder, more respectful human community. Gun Shy 17:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank you in advance, Ed, (based on your track record) for refusing to listen to what others have to say and for developing a hateful response that confirms our data-supported analysis that we bother to spend time compiling. And thanks to the usual gang of minions who race to delete comments from talk pages before somebody reads them and genuine dialogue has an opportunity to emerge. Gun Shy
I welcome your comments. --Ed


Thanks then for letting me guess wrongly that you would not welcome my contribution. Gun Shy
That's what talk pages are for :-) --Ed
Look how stupid I am, I thought that quote was in regards to afganastan. I think our military is entirely out of date for dealing w Iraq, actualy. Sam Spade 22:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you want my opinion, Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. But once having gone down that path, surrundering to Saddam's forces and letting the dictatorship resume power would have been an even bigger mistake. The key to solving Middle East violence is not politics but religion. --Ed


On a lighter note

Ed, i've been banned from all meetings of the American Communist Party, because i sang a "remix" of New Found Glory's song my friends over you at their "convention" (I called it "My Country over you", it's long) I'll share:

My Country Over You

I'm drunk off your Marxist ideals
For another night in a row
This is becoming too routine for me
But I did not mean to lead you on
And it's all right to pretend
That we still talk
It's just for show, isn't it
It's my fault that it fell apart

Just maybe
You need this
And I didn't mean to Lead you on

You were everything I wanted
But I just can't finish what I've started
There's no room left here on my back
It was damaged long ago
Though you swear that you are true
I still pick my Country over you
(My Country over you)

Please tell me everything,
That you think that I should know
About all the plans we made to form 5th Comintern
When I was never to be found
And it's all right to forget
That we still talk
Its just for fun, isn't it
It's my fault that it fell apart

Cuz maybe you need this
And I didn't mean to Lead you on

You were everything I wanted
But I just can't finish what I've started
There's no room left here on my back It was damaged long ago
Though you swear that you are true
I still pick my country over you (My country over you) x2

Just maybe you need this
You need this?
And I didn't mean to
Lead you on

You were everything I wanted
But I just can't finish what I've started
There's no room left here on my back
It was damaged long ago
Though you swear that you are true
I still pick United States|my country over you

(Repeat) MY country over you

Tell me if you like it Comrade Nick aka User:Plato

You said to me "The greatness of my country is beyond price. Anything is good that contributes to its greatness. And in a world where everything has lost its meaning, those who, like us young Germans, are lucky enough to find a meaning in the destiny of our nation must sacrifice everything else." I loved you then, but at this point we diverged. "No," I told you, "I cannot believe that everything must be subordinated to a single end. There are means that cannot be excused. And I should like to be able to love my country and still love justive. I don't want just any greatness for it, particularly a greatness born of blood and falsehood. I want to keep it alive by keeping justice alive." -Albert Camus, First Letter to a German Friend. Kevin Baas 16:23, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

I've got better things to do than offer help to people who don't want it.

I want you to help me. ant
  • I asked for the mediation committee's assistance, you have refused to assist me -- and then, after you had already rejected my request for assistance; then, and only then, did I come to disdain your assistance.
    • So then, it is not that you aren't helping me because I don't want your help; but rather, I don't want your help because its clear you don't want to provide it. It is only after the fact that you are trying to whitewash the history and pretend that help is not being provided, because I don't want it -- I made several requests for mediation, all of which were flatly denied.
      • I have asked you people to resign from the mediation committee, because it is obvious that none of you are really interested in mediating. I don't know why you don't let someone else try.
      • Furthermore, you (in particular) should resign because of your horrid behaviour towards Iris.
  1. I don't recall making a flat denial, or even a crooked one. Please copy and paste the denial here.
  2. What help did you want? And do you still want it?

You made a flat denial when you refused to respond to my numerous requests for mediation. If you would like to mediate, I suggest you do. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I distinguish between (A) flat denials & explicit refusals, on the one hand, and (B) ignoring a request or responding ineffectively, on the other. You're going to have to be clearer. For the last time: precisely what help to you want?

I want mediation. Lirath Q. Pynnor

  1. Between you and who else?
  2. About what issue?

Between me and the horde of people who routinely revert and delete my contributions without discussing them. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hi Ed, would you pop over to the mediation board when you have a mo?[1]. Ta -- sannse (talk) 22:00, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Information

Ed, I some of my comrades on the project have raised concerns about User:irismeister being censored, can you tell me for what (I want to hear your side of the stroy). thanks Comrade Nick.

I think he should be censured, not censored. :-) --Uncle Ed 13:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


NPOV

Its not a matter of "accepting opposing views" its a matter of making no reference whatsoever to Gregor's ideological pedigree. Certainly you'd think it would be relevent in a review of Gregor to mention his role in fascist and racist movements. Don't you think it's somewhat intellectually dishonest for these journals to whitewash Gregor in the way they did?AndyL 19:12, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, how about I meet you half way on this one? I think the best policy for a journal is to reveal ANYTHING that has a bearing on any possible sources of bias. Like if a historian is a holocaust denier, an historical journal should spell this out, if it prints anything that writer says about Germany or Jews. Or if a scientist works full-time for a tobacco company, and writes an article saying smoking isn't linked to cancer.
When the journals don't do this, I'm counting on folks like you, Andy. Wikipedia is well on the way to becoming the most authoritative source on many subjects -- principally because with many eyes, all flaws are obvious. --Ed

Healthy, happy puppies

I may have many opinions, Ed, but those ALSO include the opinion that my belief system is based on reasonable facts and thus that if info is TRULY factually or at least neutrally presented, *I* shouldn't feel my convictions are under attack. And that's the only thing that should count on Wikipedia. -- Dissident 00:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Naming conventions

Hey, if I'm doing anything or things that anger you or that you feel are against you let me know, I'm not trying to try to. Also, I have added content to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions that I'm fairly certain you will object to, so I thought I'd let you know.Hyacinth 22:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who can fight with a flower? Its fragile petals are a reminder of all that is beautiful within. :-) --Ed
Good to hear. I also have listed some articles on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I think that you're addressing great issues for wikipedia, even if I disagree with the details.Hyacinth 17:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Specific articles

Ethnic Germans

Ed, what are you doing with Organised persecution of ethnic Germans? The title you moved it to is Soviet propaganda, very offensive and quite the opposite of NPOV. As Jor pointed out, persecution was of ALL Germans, not just nazis. Also, I am unable to find the talk page. It seems to be lost in the moves. Nico 17:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


See Talk:Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. --Uncle Ed 17:49, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Movies

Thanks re Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind--50 First Dates maybe one of these days :) User:Lukobe

Hate groups

I actually didn't think to redirect Hate Groups...but that didn't seem to work either... Adam Bishop 22:18, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It took me three tries: (1) Hate Groups, (2) Hate groups, (3) hate group, which finally worked. You gotta be patient if you wanna be an editor. --Ed
No, I mean, he's still vandalizing it anyway. Adam Bishop 22:24, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recursion...

Ed, April 1st is over: do you want to keep Example of recursion and Example of endless loop around? They don't work anyway... (and they're not linked from anywhere else, as far as I can see.) Lupo 15:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

LOL! I was wondering if anyone would ever notice those two varmints. What do you have in mind, Mr. Loop? Oh, what do you have in mind? ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:13, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I had noticed them the day you created them, but thought I'd let the issue rest until after April 1st :-) (2004, that is.) I have nothing "in mind" regarding those two "articles". If they were my creations, I think I'd just delete them silently because I feel they're not really encyclopedic. But I was wondering what you had in mind for them. Lupo 15:26, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What do you think is the best place for the information in the "Is homosexuality a choice?" article? --Uncle Ed 12:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that the best place to deal with the questions/topics homosexuality is a choice or no one chooses to be gay is as (a) section(s) of Causes of sexual orientation. This article already exists, putting both opinions/subjects together at a more general article decreases redudancy, and is a more neutral title. Plus, it is easier to NPOV things when the "other side(s)" are right there on the page. In fact, the causes of sexual orientation article, as stands, could use a discussion of the moral/political implications of causes.Hyacinth 16:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your flowery rhetoric, both in form and in substance. :-) --Uncle Ed 16:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also potentially mergable: Genetic basis for homosexuality.Hyacinth

I think the wikipedia is overrun by a bunch of jerks who prefer to use insults, personal attacks, and banning threats; rather than discussion, to solve disputes. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Yeah, I've noticed the same problem. Sometimes I'm tempted to chuck at all. But I keep coming back.
And I fought everyone, even Jimbo, to get you reinstated after you were initially banned.
Enjoy your time off, and come back when you're ready to show us all how to use discussion rather than insults, etc. to solve disputes. You've been doing extraordinarly well, these past few months. --Uncle Ed 18:41, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your actions this evening - you blocked a user and deleted her user page and sub page completely out of process. I know you are deeply religious but we have policies and procedures here. I am going to put this to a quick poll - this is not acceptible behaviour. Secretlondon 20:35, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


A Quickpoll is being held in regards to your recent use of sysop privileges. You cannot vote on the poll, but you can make comments to defend yourself.

I'd just like to agree with Secretlondon here. I-a-s had previously been blocked, and I unblocked her, for just this reason - we do have policies, on this sort of thing, and it's important to stick to them. Did you not see that, or did you not care? Martin 22:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Blocking and user page deletion

I am not a troll or vandal. I deserved better behavior than blocking (which, in the wiki sense, is the same as jail when time-limited or to death sentence when it's for ever) and user page deletion (censorship). Isn't this a free wiki with policies and community consencus? In the past I made some bad edits and I got blocked by Angela for that. I recognized my mistake and waited until the block period ended, without creating any sock puppets. I created some articles like virtual sex which were welcomed and extended by the community. Your actions were unilateral and absolutely antiwiki. I am sexy 22:45, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed, just want to make sure I didn't tick you off today -- I hope you know I respect you and am in awe of your ability to help handle conflicts here. I just think you (like me) have been stressed by recent trolling, and perhaps we're both a little too quick to act without considering the larger principles at stake. I am sexy, despite her insistence otherwise, is wasting time and energy here (hers and ours), and either needs to shape up or ship out. But as yet I don't think we can ship her out without due process. If I've made you upset, please let me know so we can resolve it: I honestly want to live at peace here with everyone, if I can. :-) Take care, Jwrosenzweig 18:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of comfort and friendship. If I'm ticked off, it's not because of you. I simply forgot one of the basic principles. Which in turn led me away from the other, larger principles you allude to above. Ah, but the weekend is coming up! :-) --Uncle Ed 20:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology. Hyacinth 23:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed - I can't believe that you think homosexual is not a politically charged word. I am trying to be neutral, you, once again, are displaying borderline vandalism. Hyacinth 00:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I will gladly revert my edit to the "conventions" page, if you wish. Maybe I should have proposed it on the talk page. --Uncle Ed 00:46, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually, you were just responding to the objectionable content already there (mine, of course), so my apologies. A better reaction would have been to move my content to the talk page. However, I have already changed it to: See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology.
This will be a hard consensus to reach, as currently you and I (and I'm sure others) are 180°. Hyacinth 00:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

heteronormativity

This article needs alot of help, and I thought maybe you could look into it. [2][3][4].

Sam Spade 05:40, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)]]

The blocking function

I copied the following from an old quickpoll page:

  1. Jwrosenzweig 16:50, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) I think a warning is in order, and since the vote is obviously with Ed, I'll vote up here (even though I think this vote means "support 24 hour de-sysopping"). Ed, you're an asset to this community, but recently you've taken to using admin powers to perform what I think we can agree are vigilante actions -- mob justice. I'll grant that the mob is with you, and that I am even frequently part of that mob (at least, I do frequently agree that the users you discipline are in need of it). But I think it's time to set aside these tactics -- Wikipedia can survive a little WikiSex in the corner (particularly if it's just Martin's bemused comments and one new user frantically trying to arouse the attentions of the community....and succeeding, it seems), certainly for the span of a day or two while we sort things out. I have great respect for you: that's why I say, I think it's time to stop doing things just because you know three people will instantly tell you "That may have been against policy, but THANK YOU!!!!" -- we can protect Wikipedia in other ways, and I know you believe that. If you want to talk about my comments, drop a note on my talk page (and leave a haiku, if you've time). I sense frustration in your recent actions, and I want to find a way of letting you vent without getting you in troubling situations. Sorry if this seems at all out of line -- I just think someone needs to say something other than "Way to go!" or "Ed should be de- sysopped!", and I figured if I wanted it said, I should say it. Peace to you.

It's not just for reverts, it's for ad hominem attacks and overall behavior as well. This is an ongoing problem with RK as I'm sure you're aware. - Hephaestos|§ 19:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but I think someone should have left a note at his talk page first. And then waited for the hoped-for changes in behavior. If he kept up the, er, "misbehavior" after that, a quickpoll would be in order.
My only objection is to (what I regard as) the premature inception of the quickpoll action. Otherwise, I'd vote on the support side, with Danny. --Uncle Ed 19:47, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Global warming

Ed, did you know that global warming really does cause extremely cold temperatures? More accurately, it changes weather patterns much like El Nino does. So, a locality that normally is very temperate becomes unreasonably cold as a result of changes in weather patterns while another locality gets much warmer. The funnier claim in Al Gore's comment is that Bush's policies caused global warming. Global warming is on a much larger scale and, while Bush's policy will probably increase global warming, it could not have the sudden impact to say that those policies caused global warming within Bush's term. - Tεxτurε 13:59, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course. ;-) I also know that:

  • peace causes war
  • knowledge causes ignorance
  • freedom causes slavery

Any other newspeak concepts you want to deconstruct? --Uncle Ed 15:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nah, I feel sufficiently chastised... ;) - Tεxτurε 13:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Administration

Did you know Irismeister is a consultant with the US geological service? I hope you can understand why I might be irritated to hear him labeled a "troll", simply because he doesn't share the common belief that iridology is quackery. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Wik

Unfortunately, Wik is at it again. The three-revert rule needs to be replaced with a discussion-promoting policy instead. -- Dissident 15:28, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He's being totally unproductive at Jerusalem and refuses to discuss things at the Talk page. Didn't you just put him on Wikipedia:Quickpolls for that? -- Dissident 15:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes and no. What I put at quickpolls was really a question about whether announcing the intention to violate the 3-reverts-per-day rule, was against the rules. I guess they decided it was mere rhetoric. Like "I oughta bust you one in the chops" isn't considered a threat (in a legal sense, i.e., I'm not allowed to hit you first because of it). But if you aim a gun or brandish a knife, in most jurisdictions I don't have to wait for you to fire a shot or cut me before I start defending myself.)
Um, where was I? Sorry: No, refusing to discuss things is not something I can give Wik a time-out for. He irritates the heck out of me, but he's my test case. We who regard ourselves as custodians of Wikipedia MUST find of way of dealing with this stuff which (a) reduces the annoyances effectively AND (b) is fair to the, er, perpetrators.
Anyway, please tell me more about how Wiki is being "totally unproductive" and "refusing to discuss things". What did he do, and what kind of discussion have you tried to have?
I did not announce the intention to violate the 3-reverts rule, I said I will revert it exactly 3 times a day. And it's interesting how you overlook how Uriber not only announced his intention to violate the 3-revert rule, but did violate it and continues to do so. --Wik 16:03, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Right! I'm sorry, Wik! --Uncle Ed 16:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

FoxNewsIs...

I am wondering did you block FoxNewsIs***, because his username violates wiki's no offenive usernames policy (i know you put it on VFD) Comrade Nick

I wanted to, but the last time I did something like that which "obvously" didn't require a vote beforehand, I get in trouble. So I merely started a quickpoll. (I just checked, and FoxNIS is not currently blocked.) --Ed
Ok just needed that for clarification, anyway Mr Natural-Health, and RK, are at it again with this edit war, can you please tell them both to "cool it" because they are behaving like two cheerleaders, and I’m trying to mediate the situation w/o either one of having to go to the arbitration committee. Comrade Nick
I told Robert (RK), but there's no talking to MNH. --Ed
I'll try to talk to Mr Natural-Health. Comrade Nick
Well here is what MNH told me (you could check on his talk page history, he delated most of my converstion w/ him, i must add that was "odd"):

I will pass on that. I doubt that RK will respond to anybody, anyway. My public comment efforts on RK have proved quite successful. And, as I will follow through on the dispute process, I need to ask him a few things directly. I am not going to avoid him, and I will point fingers. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Frankly ed i give up. Comrade Nick


Cecropia

Hi, Ed, I've come to ask a favor. I nominated Cecropia for adminship 2 weeks ago--for about a week, the vote has been roughly constant. He's got 80% approval (32-8). I was hoping that a developer could push the button. I feel kind of bad leaving him hanging. Thanks much, Meelar 22:06, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) P.S. Re: your user page: Spain's deployment was one of the largest (counting combat troops); only the U.S., Britain had more. Therefore, it's certainly acceptable to say that Spain was one of the "principal allies". ;)

I don't think I'm a developer any more, even though the label "developer" appears in the USER_RIGHTS field of my USER table entry. I'm just a Wikipedia:bureaucrat now.
The vote ended with 78% in favor. I'll let Angela or another bureaucrat decide if that's enough of a consensus. --Uncle Ed 13:35, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Thank you, Uncle Ed. I really appreciate your taking the initiative, and I'm happy it was in my favor. I don't think anyone really believes that I am about to use my new superpowers to go on a rampage. :) I stuck with this because so many took so much trouble to review my work and support me, and I felt there was an issue of my personal integrity. I'm grateful to you and to all. Cecropia 19:24, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


AMA

So you and your fellow nominee know, members who join before Friday, April 16, 2004, at 11:00 EST can vote in the first ever AMA Coordinator election. -- user:zanimum

AMA elections start tommorrow

The AMA co-ordinator elections will start tommorrow at 11:00 EST, as long as this isn’t contested by any AMA member by noon today. -- user:zanimum

I think I'd rather serve as staff, under the other guy. Actually, I wish Anthere would run! She's better at this sort of stuff than I am. --Uncle Ed 14:18, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recently

Hi. I edited the Saint Petersburg Democratic Club article which you started, changing "recently" to "in April, 2004". IMO Wikipedia should avoid contextless "recently" as a description for when something happend, since we can't say when someone might come upon that article, possibly years from now. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I "recently" created that article. ;-) Thanks for making it "timeless". -- an aging Uncle Ed 19:00, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AMA co-ordinator election is now on

You may now vote for user:Ed_Poor or user:Alex756 in the first ever AMA co-ordinator election. Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure for more details.

AMA members who wish to abstain from voting must also e-mail wikipedia_ama_voting@yahoo.co.uk with notice of that intent.

To clarify anything before voting, ask user_talk:Zanimum or user_talk:Jwrosenzweig on their talk pages.

AMA members have until April 30, at 11:00:00 EST to vote. -- user:zanimum

I rolled back your edit to my talk page under the assumption that you'd forgotten to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Coordinator_Election_Procedure to learn that you needed to email your vote for it to be valid. Hope you don't take offense. :-) Jwrosenzweig 17:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I emailed my vote now. --Uncle Ed 17:21, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In concord with the new policy, I'm just noting that your vote has been counted. Jwrosenzweig 15:55, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) :-)

vfd-clergy

here I got involved without taking due action, because it had already been deleted and I did not realize. Ought I to delete the page? This is from a nephew to his uncle, asking for advice/action :)Pfortuny 12:23, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I'm just working on tidying Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Do you still need the discussion on placenames to be there? I'd like to archive it if it's OK. Also, could you update the progress bulletin if that's appropriate? Thanks -- sannse (talk) 15:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik's second face

Wik spends 12 hours a day six days a week like some employee in an Islamic country veting Wikipedia articles for content. I was just looking at your troubles with Wik taking the anti-government line.

Funny enough, Wik seems to have the opposite views when editing articles about the Indonesian military occupation & genocide of West Papua. Suddenly Wik support the 'government' view and says West Papua is a willing 'province' of Indonesia; that the article should be renamed to Papua_(Indonesia) (because as Tannin had to point out Papua has been the name of an adjactant region since 1894, so the Indonesians efforts to confuse people with the sixth name change in thirty years..

Wik also renamed the article about pre-Indonesian Hollandia to Jayapura; yet when it came to my article on West Papuan Genocide Wik changed that to Attacks_in_West_New_Guinea . In short ensuring the Google does not point people looking for cases of genocide & hostile colonization towards Islamic powers like Indonesia.

Where is Wik's concern for humanity? Palestinians claim 20,000 total dead; yet West Papua has between 150,000 and 300,000 or so dead. Difference is it an Islamic military shooting Christian Papuans. Just compare the tales I've listed so far to any Palestinian woe of whatever. Problems about a few Israeli free settlers moving into Palestine? Try 1.2 Million Islamic Javanese being shipped into West Papua by the Indonesian government.

In short, I'll support ANY effort to get this Wik creature off the pedia. And the Admin should be on the lookout for paid people veting the Wikipedia to suite their political agenda.

Where is anybody's concern for humanity? When Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were murdering 2 million people in Cambodia, the New York Times published only one or two articles about this genocide. But seventy (70) articles criticizing Pinochet for human rights for around 3 thousand people in Chile.
Shouldn't we be several hundred times more concerned about multi-millions of people's human rights being violated? Or are they just little Asian gooks, and they don't matter to us in the West? :-(
Should we?
It is unfortunate when these things happen; but did Pol Pot use US arms? Where they being paid by the US government at the time? Had the US been instrumental in the nations creation a decade before?
In Indonesia, the answer to each question is yes. Even in 2001 first thing GW Bush did was resume sending Military Aid money to Indonesia; perhaps he was impressed with their Scorch Earth policy to East Timors vote for its independance; did Pres. Ford & Henry Kissenger fly out of Jarakar just ten hours before Indonesian invaded East Timor in 1975, yep. And why was Ford there, it wasn't planned; Ford was in China when he got a phone call from Gen. Suharto asking him to change his travel plans and come to Indonesia instead; weird thing, the President says yes. And I wonder what they talked about while the Indonesian troops were on hold ;-)
And since that the 30year limit of State Dept. records released their summary of the 1962 Foreign policy, we know the US traded West Papua to Indonesia in exchange for their promise not to invite the Soviets into Indonesia. And the President's personal letter confirms this.
But as I point out in my article, there was no ill-intent, the 'country' (US) did what it thought it had to do; and as I explained in the discussion pages; we do know from the published record that the State Department was against supporting Indonesian's claim, whatever swayed JFK was something he must have been told by the 3 other advising (foreign affairs) bodies of that period, The Ford Foundation, Rand Corp., and the CIA. But I doubt any of them told JFK that they had a vested interest in Indonesia; I think it unlikely they would risk telling a democrat President of the '49 Soedjatmoko/Ford plan to gain US business access to Asian resources by supplying political support to the most corrupt of the Indonesian social & then military elite. Remember the Indonesian military's invasion of West Papua was still 4 years before Gen. Suharto takes over.; all the CIA payments to the military since '57 would have been wasted if the US didn't support them in West Papua. I'm sure the CIA people believed they were acting in their country's best interest.Daeron 10:15, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing of well-behaved made it very misleading

Someone wrote:

... which is clear and correct enough, and you changed it to:

... which is grossly wrong. Only in the context of application of Monte Carlo methods would it make sense to propose that as a definition of well-behaved function. Usually a mathematician speaking of a well-behaved function is referring to other kinds of good behavior. The context is expected to make clear what is referred to. Similarly, you moved the example about well-behaved regions, another extremely context-dependent usage, to a place before the list of more typical examples, and thereby made it extremely misleading. See Talk:Well-behaved. Michael Hardy 18:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) Are you an economist? You are not in school any longer as your French page indicates, right? Get-back-world-respect 15:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some guidance on VfD

Sorry to bug you with this, but I can't seem to find an answer. I've been thinking of doing some of the dog work on VfD, and the instructions seems clear if somewhat involved, but I can't find what to do if the consensus is "keep"? Just delete the discussion? Don't want to ruffle any feathers. Thanks - Cecropia 18:47, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed, you wrote to me:
Articles should not be deleted, but fixed. Unless there's obviously no hope of them ever becoming articles, in which case any admin can delete it. I defy anyone to point out as many as FIVE articles listed on vfd which really needed to be there!!! --Uncle Ed 14:08, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Was that in response to anything in particular, or just an ongoing comment on your feelings on VfD? We have an ongoing situation where users want to fold the "Oil for Food Allegations" (originally they wanted it deleted) into "Oil for Food" which would have the effect of somewhat submerging the issue. Is there a policy on this, or do you have an opinion? Thanks - Cecropia 14:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My opinion on the Iraq "Oil for Food" program is:

  • it sounds like it was well-intentioned, but
  • a lot of ineffective or counterproductive UN stuff sounds well-intentioned, and
  • it's been pretty well proved that Saddam evaded the "no money for military or goverment" rather handily

So the FACT that many advocates charge Saddam with diverting humanitarian funds to non-humanitarian purposes should be a prominent part of the oil for food article.

So should the fact that some advocates maintain:

  • that Saddam didn't really evade provisions of the program; or,
  • that the UN or whoever set it up had no right to do so

--Ed

mmhh, I see you are hot


don't burn!

Some questions for your AMA campaign

  • What sort of governing structure will you setup to manage the AMA?
  • How do you plan on assigning cases to advocates? Will you allow any one to volunteer for a case regardless of their expertise in the area/topic under discussion?
  • How many times do you plan on allowing a case to undergo the arbitration process before the AMA refuses to allocate further resources to the issue?
  • Are you in favor of a Wikimoney fee for cases that require abnormal resources for resolution?

--Pharotic 00:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I plan to work with Alex, whichever way the vote turns out. If I'm placed in charge, I hope Alex will be my chief of staff. If he's placed in charge, I will do whatever he asks me to.
This sounds like the Mediation Committee reincarnated, except that this one is grassroots rather than Jimbo-mandated. It probably has a better chance of working. I think advocates should have (a) considerable online experience at working toward consenses and (b) some knowledge of either the participants or the subject matter. (I'm leaning toward requesting help from specific advocates for a given issue, rather than asking for volunteers. If you're in this, you're already a volunteer! :-)
Let's not confuse arbitration with advocacy or mediation. Fred and Mav's Arbitration Committee issues binding orders: like, "stay off Wikipedia for 3 days". That's not what I'm planning to do. I want to help people find a lasting consensus. I will allocate resources as long as their is hope of resolution.
You don't have to pay me. I do this in my free time. --Uncle Ed 14:54, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Opposition to US-led war against and occupation of Iraq

Your recent change on the Iraq occupation article was rather shameful. An overwhelming majority of about 90% of the Spanish people opposed the war, along with the majority of any other country participating in the war when it started except the US. The main reasons for the opposition was the belief that the weapons inspections were fruitful, that an invasion of Iraq without UN authorization is a breaking of international law and that the US started the war because of other reasons than those publicly announced (weapons of mass destruction). Zapatero announced the Spanish troops would leave Iraq if they had no UN support, which is entirely logical given the Spanish think that the occupying forces act without authorization. Elections are a primary aim of the UN and the Spanish government, showing your declaration that the Spanish did not support the democratization of Iraq was an infamous lie. Get-back-world-respect 14:13, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, glad you caught my error! I take it then that Spanish people DO favor democracy in Iraq. --Ed
BTW, for what its worth, I also opposed the invasion of Iraq. Military, political & economic means cannot bring about world peace, according to my religious beliefs. But once the war started, I figured Bush had to keep going lest a victory by Saddam make the situation even worse. --Ed
Oops, sorry, for me it looked like you did that on purpose. I think that a retreat at any point before the ruling forces were destroyed would have been right because the invasion broke international law. Once Saddam was out of power and there was no one to keep a minimum of law and order the US still should have accepted that the only ones authorized to deal with the situation were the United Nations.

You wrote on my talk page "I deplore the use of military power to "improve" the world. There are better ways.." Although I refused to serve in the military for reasons of conscience I can accept that sometimes it can be useful to keep peace by force, e.g. in Kosovo. But it should be the last resort, and only the United Nations are entitled to decide. Regarding the case of Iraq I would like to know why the United States refuses to admit weapons inspections at home although together with Russia it has the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Get-back-world-respect 15:17, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed,

Thanks for the nice comments on my talk page. You hold strong beliefs and principles, but I don't recall an instance where you weren't open about that during disputes over controversial articles. Even when you can be faulted for being stubborn, you stay congenial. In that regard you seem to be doing as well as Jimbo Wales, who's also able to strike a balance between being fair while sticking to his beliefs. 172 16:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Ed. I don't know if you missed my message above: I'm tidying Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Do you still need the discussion on placenames to be there? I'd like to archive it if it's OK. Also, could you update the progress bulletin if that's appropriate?

You also might like to know that I've nominated Danny for the committee - the vote is at Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Nominations_for_mediator if you want to comment.

In other mediation news... Tuf-Kat is resigning as chair, and we are currently discussing whether we need a replacement [5]. The general feeling seems to be that while we work as individuals it's useful to have a named person to ensure all requests are followed up. There is also a new proposed confidentiality agreement available for use within mediations.

Regards -- sannse (talk) 13:38, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK. I hope it didn't feel as though there was any criticism intended in my question, I just want to tidy the page. So, how about if I move the discussion to archive and update the progress bulletin section. How should I word it? Something like: "Mediation on the matter of place names in Central-Eastern Europe has stalled. Any participants interested in resuming the process should contact User:Ed Poor." Would that do? -- sannse (talk) 16:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry if I was a bit defensive, I was feeding trolls again -- which is always a stupid and upsetting thing to do. Yes, archiving is fine. Thanks for tidying up. --Uncle Ed 18:44, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

copied from Cecropia's talk page: Articles should not be deleted, but fixed. Unless there's obviously no hope of them ever becoming articles, in which case any admin can delete it. I defy anyone to point out as many as FIVE articles listed on vfd which really needed to be there!!! --UcleEd 14:08, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1) Iraq after Saddam Hussein (deleted because covered in US-led occupation of Iraq and History of Iraq, 2) Oil for Food Allegations (POV by title, redirected to Oil for food, 3) Eclipse FAQ for IntelliJ users, 4) The power of many cars, 5) Tavi, 6) Liidii, 7)Downrange, 8)FAR 103, 9) Autonomy Party, 10)Atre, 11)Reverse piracy, 12)2004 Ambition Googlebomb, 13)Mansoor durrani, 14)Mang, 15)Andrea_Hiesberger, 16)Greg Allen, 17)Joe_haywood, 18)Aquadrenaline, 19)Riters.com, 20)UMMO. I won! Since you will have difficulties to send me a virtual icecream I invite all of you to help me with my vocabulary project, see my page. Get-back-world-respect 14:12, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Merci pour ta confiance Ed; Je suis triste que le premier steward qui ait jamais existé n'ait pas été renouvellé :-( Pour moi, tu étais un steward, qui peut être appuyait vite sur le bouton, mais qui le faisait toujours en ame et conscience et avec la meilleure volonté du monde. Et j'aime bien les gens impulsifs qui regrettent leurs erreurs et le disent. Toute mon amitié :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Actuellment, c'est bon! A steward needs to have the humility to pass on his office when the time comes. This was a key plot element in The Lord of the Rings (part 3): Denethor should have welcomed Aragorn -- instead of being jealous and suspicious. Better to have Angela & Mav (with Uncle Ed's full support) than to have un impulsif vite sur le bouton comme moi :-) --Uncle Ed 18:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Given you are a mediator, could you tell me what to do with a guy like TDC? He has a very long record of vandalism. Get-back-world-respect 23:36, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vocabulary program

Strangely, enough, I have also written a program for learning vocabulary. I used VBA but then ported it to SprintDB so it runs on my Pocket PC. I've learned about 850 Korean words since last spring, using it. --Uncle Ed 14:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great. Are you a programmer? My program does not work with Korean signs. Why do you learn Korean? Get-back-world-respect 23:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've been a programmer for 30 years, taught myself BASIC and FORTRAN in my early teens. Went on to 3 or 4 kinds of assembly language and half dozen higher-level languages. I finally settled down to my 2 favorites, Visual Basic and Java.

I study Korean because it's Sun Myung Moon's native language, and it's hard to get good translations of his teachings. --Ed

Coordination cooperation

Yes, that is in the spirit of an association, to work together. Have you read the Guide to advocacy stuff? I got it started thinking a manual might be a useful thing for members to refer to, it could also be annotated with all the collective wisdom of the association. I was thinking that we could have some kind of forum where AMA members could discuss advocacy issues in general or even specific cases. Maybe it should be a bulletin board thing that is then refactored into a permanent record or just a few wiki pages, what do you think? — © Alex756 01:57, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail!

I strongly suggest that you should add the announcement project page on alternative medicine to your watchlist. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:00, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

google fight

FYI Jimmy Wales versus Ed poor Walter 12:37, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Your comments in the Wikiproject on alternative medicine have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Infoboxes#homeopathy is NOT pseudoscience and I am requesting a response from you.

I am beginning to have grave doubts about your ability to perform simple tasks, like figuring out where to post responses. So, please start demonstrating your ability to perform simple tasks. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:11, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not likely to improve much in this regard. Feel free to regard me as something between an imbecile and a simpleton. ;-) And if I miss anything important, please call my attention to it here.
Let me be perfectly clear and to the point. Unless you can demonstrate that you can follow my above instructions you will be removed from participating in our project by me, for cause. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:23, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)~
John please watch your tone. Just because Ed takes it well doen't mean you can be rude. theresa knott 14:28, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am not being rude. On the contrary, I am demostrating a great deal of patience. And, as I have just communicated, unless Ed Poor can demostrate that he is capable of performing simple tasks at some minimal level of performance he will be removed for cause. I will give him one week to respond. If he fails to respond per my instructions he will be removed for cause. Perhaps, you would like to join our project? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Gee whiz, John, I was kind of hoping you would consider joining ours. What's up? --Ed

Proposal for Oil for food

Salut M. le Pauvre -- I've made a proposal for trying to make some progress on Oil for food. The proposal is here: Talk:Oil_for_food#A_proposal_and_some_suggestions_for_moving_forward.

Please read it over and indicate if you feel that you can accept it as a way of making some progress. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:15, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Uncle Ed -- I've created Oil for food/revision now -- I was going to wait until 9:00, but since you're ready to get started... :-)
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:46, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

If you're talking about 9:00 A.M. (US Eastern Time), I think I can restrain myself for another 12 minutes... :-) --Ed

Hi Ed, problems with Oil for food remain serious, would you care to look at it again? Get-back-world-respect 00:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

List of virgins

God bless you, Ed Poor! [6] Cheers, Pædia | talk 17:29, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Orphan talk page in article space

Hi Ed! I was wandering through the stacks at the Library of Congress and got hit on the head by something bearing your name...

You have an orphan talk page in article space at Talk:Ed Poor. Would you like it merged into your User Talk:Ed Poor, made into a subpage of your talk, or just deleted?

Thanks! - Tεxτurε 22:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. If I include all your posts both from the old [[Ed Poor]] and the new User:Ed Poor that we'd be able to fit the entire Library at Alexandria into the space freed up if you ever became an unperson. I wonder if the old soviet empire ever considered removing someone to save storage space... )

Advocacy

Hi, I have a problem and I see that you works as an advocate here. I already sent all this to coordinator Alex756. He said that I should talk to some of users from the list. So I will just copy what I said to him:

I have a problem with two stubber users , not to use different words.

They keep deleting some info which thay don`t like in Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek articles. 

Those users are Romanm and GeneralPatton.
They both seem to be extreme nationalists. They keep denying the fact of killing    
40 unarmed men in Slovenia in 1991. They said that I made up charges against
this two slovene leaders and after i provided newspaper article about that they 
said that charges are silly(shooting 40 innocent people) and started deleting 
that part of article. They say it is not important and that Kucan and Drnovsek 
are respected in Europe. That is of course today but what about 1991 while they 
were high official of Communist party of Slovenia and Yugoslavia.
They call Blic newspaper sensationalistic and tabloid. It is not true because
it was the only newspaper that was not controlled by Milosevic.
Romanm even reported me at Vandalism in progress after I reported him?!
Now he is saying that shooting in 1991 never happened. This remainds me of
neo-nazisitc denial of holocaust. He is trying everything to delete such info
and show that Slovenian masacre was not trigger of Yugoslav wars.
But even Slovenian media reported about this masacre.
Maybe he was too young to remember but it still doesn`t make it OK to delete 
that part of an article.
One of many parties that is pressing this charges is Green Party. GeneralPatton
called them nationalistic and propagandistic.

I also had some earlier problems with Romanm about Coats of Arms. According ti him COA can be copyrighted even if it is the same as original. He didn`t complain about Slovenian CoA which somebody took from copyrighted website. 

You can see some more in :

Contact me over my talk page.

I would be delighted if you decide to help me in here.

I will say thank you and I will wait for your answer!

Regards --Avala 15:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Problem Who is the court

Problem is that this two users consider themselfes as Court. Regards--Avala 16:58, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at a page?

I stumbled across this blanked page: Israeli deaths due to palestinian terrorism 2000. Could you either revert it or list it for deletion since you blanked it?

P.S. I think it might be time for some spring cleaning on your talk page :)

Thanks Dori | Talk 17:05, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Taking your second point first: hmm, it IS spring...
I no longer remember why I blanked that page. Feel free to revert if you see any useful info in it. --Ed

Your editorial

Thank you for your editorial; I really appreciate it.

I couldn't help note that in all the mea culpas, only Senator Lieberman seemed to note that: "I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized," he said, and that four Americans in Fallujah who were "murdered and burned and humiliated ... never received an apology from anybody." -- Cecropia | Talk 21:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a philosophical or ethical article about double standards. --Uncle Ed 17:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly agree with that, philosophically, but what we should actually have, if it were possible, is merged articles, or at least merged Talk on certain subjects: Bush-Kerry, Coailition-Resistance, abu Ghraib-Nick Berg, and a number of other subjects are linked, but exist in mutually exclusive vacuums. The result is that insertions, deletions and reverts are made and argued in isolation, leading to inevitable imbalance. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
You've hit the nail on the head. It's precisely that sort of imbalance which our NPOV policy is intended to address. Those of us who really care about accuracy and neutrality will have to take the lead here. It's a lot of work! --Uncle Ed 18:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I feel we are wrestling with an essential dichotomy: we want the Wiki to be as open as possible, even encouraging anonymous edits, but we want people to disclipline themselves to NPOV. What do you think of this possibility? We have (for example) two counterpointed articles: George W. Bush and John Kerry. We make each talk page a manual redirect to Talk:George W. Bush and John Kerry. That way the discussion on appropriateness has to become mutual, or at least mutually transparent between the two sides. Of course we would have to protect the original separate talk pages. I made a few test pages to see if this would work with the current software, it does. Start with Test page, then click on [Discuss this page]. Please let me know when you're done with this and I'll delete the test pages (or you can, if you wish). -- Cecropia | Talk 02:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea: see the Mister Red and Mister Blue test articles I made, in response. I tried to set up their talk pages the way you suggested. --Ed

I found out that the Wikipedia entry for Augusto Pinochet is second on google. Just for you to know. The Unified School idea was mentioned between the "evils of the godless UP", but apparently has been pretty much forgotten. I really don't know how important it was as a further incentive to the coup.--AstroNomer 16:54, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Request regarding Mediation Committee

More than two weeks ago, on April 25, the Arbitration Committee referred a case to us which it had considered regarding Anthony DiPierro and a number of other user to us here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Issue_of_Anthony's_reverts_and_alleged_trolling.

While Anthony has agreed to mediation, so far, there has been no response from another party in order to begin working on the Anthony mediation. We have drafted a statement at User:Bcorr/mediation statement draft that we would like to post on the Requests for mediation to the Arbitration Committee and all other interested parties, but before we do so, we want to check with the rest of the Mediation Committee. Please review the statement and let me know if you approve, wish to make/suggest changes, or have another way you'd like to suggest that we proceed.

Also, in that statement we refer to ourselves as co-chairs of the committee. There was discussion at the mediation bulletin board on the bottom half of the page, but we wanted to confirm that there was agreement on our being co-chairs for the period noted there before we post the statement. Also, if people are amenable to our serving as co-chairs, I will add that information to the Mediation Committee page.

Please take a moment to comment on these issues at User:Bcorr/mediation statement draft.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:48, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&oldid=3562168"