User talk:Ed Poor

Quick reference section:

• Special:Log/block

	Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:Ed Poor]]:	edit - watch - purge
	To do: fix help desk bifurcate Wikipedia:Edit summary - help vs. policy Create a disputed blocks page. All users should be able to see which admins have been been blocking a particular user account This works when admins use the Wikipedia:policy enforcement log. Write safe settlement (of the world's knowledge). Explore the use of templates ("transclusion"?) to organize lists. Done: bifurcate Wikipedia:bug report - user vs. tech (Wikipedia:MediaZilla) bifurcate wolf - sidebar: wolf hunting controversy Write wheel war.

Old requests

Really old requests

I shoveled a whole bunch of stuff into /requests.

User Wyss and the articles on Nick Adams and Natalie Wood

Could I possibly ask you to have a further look at the Talk:Nick Adams page? As a reply to administrator Willmcw's comment on this page, User:Wyss has written, "You clearly haven't read that link yourself. Why didn't you bother to check it? Maybe because you're so busy as a new Wikipedia:Admin?" This sounds very similar to flamings by User:Ted Wilkes. You may remember his reply to administrator User:Mel Etitis on his talk page: "Yet again I have to request that you read facts and know what you are talking about before commenting. I suggest, since this matter is in the hands of Wikipedia:Mediator Ed Poor, that it might be best for you to refrain from further comments and not interfere in the process." You may also remember this user's attempts at silencing me by repeatedly accusing me of vandalism and deleting my contributions. Why are users Wyss and Ted Wilkes so keenly interested to suppress every reference that Nick Adams was gay? See also Natalie Wood and Talk:Natalie Wood where information taken from a current biography has been repeatedly deleted by user Wyss. On the Talk:Nick Adams page, this user now claims that he "found zero documented evidence to even thinly support any assertion under WP standards that Mr Adams was a homosexual" and that none of my edits "are supported by documented evidence cited in peer-reviewed, secondary sources". In my opinion, this seems to be a new strategy by user Ted Wilkes (using an alias) to suppress any reference that Adams was gay. I am quite sure that users Ted Wilkes and Wyss must be identical, as User:Wyss is all too familiar with David Bret's writings and uses similar arguments as Ted Wilkes presents to suppress my contributions to the articles on Nick Adams and Natalie Wood. He has again deleted these contributions. Significantly, the following sentence can be found on User:Wyss's page: "I think the Internet trolls inhabiting Wikipedia are its biggest weakness since they stir up unhelpful vandalism throughout helpful anarchy." On the Talk:Natalie Wood page user Wyss even accuses me of an alleged "standard tactic of trying to wear me down with repetition of mostly factual but slightly distorted material." This is remarkably similar to what Ted Wilkes says on the Talk:Nick Adams page: "This is the 'wear them down' tactic that they have successfully used over and over with others who objected to false and unfounded claims on the Presley page, doing it so many times that the other users eventually gave up." In addition, the "barnstar of diligence" is appearing on both of their pages. See User:Wyss#Sway_me and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Thanks_Ted_Wilkes.21. What do you think? I hope you are able to help me. Thanks in anticipation. 80.141.179.151 2 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

I think User:Wyss has now violated the three reverts rule, as he has again deleted my contribution to the Natalie Wood page. What is your opinion? 80.141.178.103 3 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)

Zen-master's 2nd RFA

Hi Uncle Ed, I wanted to tell you personally that, after consulting with Arbor, I've initiated an RFA regarding Zen-master's activity on the R&I page. Drummond has voiced his support for this on Arbor's talk page. I think all the other regular editors of the article have had enough and are temporarily avoiding the page entirely.--Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)

"Merge" template voting

I've set up two separate votes on the "merge" templates' discussion page. One pertains to the templates' wording, and the other pertains to the templates' visual design. Users may vote on neither, either or both of these issues.

Please note that I've posted this invitation on the talk pages of everyone who has expressed a preference for either wording and/or visual design. —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

Chairing

I've gathered a bit too much work to do over the last few months, so I'd like to dedicate some time to resolving stuff, like the mediations I agreed to do and creating a few article and article overhauls and cleanups I've been sitting on for ages. Would you be willing to chair the mediation committee for the next week or so? - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Yes, of course. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 13:06 (UTC)

Nick Adams

Hey Ed, I agree it's all speculation. More so, I think it's what my mum would call "codswallop" (not a lick of documentation from the era). Wyss 4 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

I hear those folks in Hollywood tend to be sexually loose, and other parts of the performing arts world have their pecadillos. Like, they say male ballet dancers tend to be homosexuals. But the question you and I are interested in, is what Wikipedia should say about it.

Just say that Nick Adams claimed Elvis was bisexual, and let readers click on his name to find out how well regarded he is as a source on famous people's sexuality. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 17:05 (UTC)

Sorry for the whole trouble concerning the edit wars in the articles on Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, etc., but I don't want to give up because one editor is so keenly interested to suppress what I have written. I have wasted much time to find independent sources cited on the discussion pages to support my view. But this does not seem to be enough to convince user Wyss.

I think the following passage is O.K. and neutral enough to be included in the article on Nick Adams, as these remarks are based on several independent sources:

Adams and actor Natalie Wood were close friends. Author Gavin Lambert in his 2004 biography Natalie Wood: A Life writes, "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..." Some tabloid and other reports with similar characterizations were published decades after his death. According to these accounts, before his success as an actor Adams was a male prostitute catering to men. James Dean is also said to have claimed that he worked with his friend Adams as a street hustler when he first arrived in Hollywood <!—See http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biod1/dean2.html-->. The book Elvis: The Hollywood Years (David Bret, 2002) even claims Elvis Presley was intimate with Adams. However, there are no court records, contemporary letters or statements attributed to Adams to support these rumours.

Significantly, my opponent Wyss has again deleted parts of this paragraph. His only argument is that my sources which I have cited according to the Wikipedia guidelines are not reliable enough and not peer-reviewed. This seems to be his personal opinion. On the other hand, he has included several other "facts" in the Trivia section and other parts of the article, which are also based on dubious internet sources which are not peer-reviewed. To my mind, he's applying double standards to accept findings which are in line with his personal view and suppresses those which are not. I don't know what I can do, as the edit war is going on. Why is this editor so stubborn concerning the inclusion of some details which can be found in independent sources? You said on the discussion page, "just say that X wrote a book which claims Y is homosexual / bisexual / whatever. One or two lines ought to be enough." This is what I did, but user Wyss does not accept sources such as Hadleigh's Hollywood Gays. 80.141.251.229 8 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

It's true, I don't accept Hadleigh as a reliable source. Regardless, I would like to resolve this editing spat without locking the page or putting up a disputed tag again and am way open to following any suggestion Uncle Ed may be kind enough to help out with (a consensus either way would also resolve it for me... I did try to compromise by putting in the Lambert quote). Thanks! Wyss 8 July 2005 09:59 (UTC)

Did I come off as...

Ed, I fear I came off as confrontational. Please forgive me. English is only my 3rd language, so reading tone into my messages is bound to lead to unexpected results... Should I have said "Do you imply..." instead of "Are you implying..."? Oh, the mysteries of English verb tenses! Arbor 4 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

There's a fine line between an innocent request for clarification and a mean-spirited accusation. Engish is my first language, and I've never had so much trouble with it anywhere else than Wikipedia. I appreciate your contributions to R&I discussion. (And I'm returning your apology "unopened" - nothing to forgive! The mistake was all on my side.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 17:48 (UTC)

A non-dispute comment on R&I

Ed, hi,

I just noticed that you are having the same kind of experience I am having on R&I in at least one respect. You said:

I almost want to laugh, at how easy it is to find scientific papers (or scholary comment) on the influence of "environmental" factors. I've placed more than one reference at R&I talk, but no one seemed to notice.

My most important points (at least as I see them) get totally ignored, I think by everybody. It wouldn't matter except that the problem with the article is not where people seem to think it is. Americans (and, I suspect, many other peoples) are very "atomistic" when it comes to things expressed in language. But the truth is that a single statement most often depends on its context for meaning. (There's a whole book devoted or at least permeated by this idea in my professional field.) We've got an unclear context -- virtually a nil context at the layers in between social context and the texual context of the article. As a result people bring their own social contexts to look at the article and interpret it as saying vastly different things.

If we had a proper context, we would have a capstone article that would talk about the fact that social outcomes are measures of an inferred characteristic we call intelligence, and that "intelligence" can mean anything from "street smarts" to the kind of facility with abstract reasoning that let an Indian man of limited means and opportunities recreate most of modern mathematics using his own mind to the kind of innate facility for "computing" and anticipating the movements of cattle thatmakes a good cutting horse become the one who gets to decide how to cut the cow out of the herd, not the cowboy -- who doesn't have the mental acuity to keep up with the game. That article would fan out to a series of articles (I listed them on the talk page, adding one or two to the list I stole from ZM.) The articles would examine questions like the impact of nutrition on the social outcomes that are "intelligence dependent" (whatever that really means), the impact of prenatal environment, etc., etc. All of your "environmental factors" would find a place in such a series of articles. In such a context, and only in such a context, examining the facts about studies pertaining to IQ tests and [race] (even if defined in the sloppy census bureau way) would become useful and appropriate. Note that when is said "facts" I specified the facts about the studies.

It either is true or it is not true that people who do research in an environment where discovery of a major misstep can ruin one's career have, as a profession operating in concert, vetted the testing instruments, vetted the way the tests are administered, administered the tests, compared test scores with later academic success and success in meeting life goals, and come up with a set of test data that satisfies people in the field. (Nobody's career is getting trashed because they have been caught fudging the results, or if they have been caught then their results have been purged.)

It is either true or it is not true that these same people have compared their test results with many other variables such as levels of nutrition, and have done a correct job of seeing how well these variables correlate.

It is either true or not that there is a difference in average scores on these measures that predict academic and other kinds of success according to the [racial] categories that our government uses.

Up to this point it has been important to rigidly exclude anything that cannot be verified by looking at the evidence of tests, computations made from the tests, etc. But, assuming that we don't have a field of mad scientists at work, these results should tell us something. They should tell us that some groups in our country are at risk.

Once we acknowledge that society has a problem, we can try to use science to identify both causes and cures. We already know some things to avoid, e.g., crack babies. It seems reasonable to me that if we find that the absence of some dietary component in gestating mothers causes diminished intellectual capacity in the children we should make it easy for mothers to get the stuff. Maybe we should even incentivize consumption of it.

If it is discovered that, let's say, not only is there an association between the so-called "racial groups" and average IQ scores, but that there is a genetic factor that is clearly implicated, that still is only damaging information in the hands of a bigot. I think it was DAD that pointed out that one might discover that people with one kind of genetic heritage have different dietary needs and failing to meet those needs has a bad influence on brain development. (They've recently become clear enough on the likely efficacy of certain heart medications to recommend a "try this one first with X people, but try that one first with Y people" approach.)

The questions I've outlined here are complex and contentious, and it seems to me that virtually everyone wants an answer the length of a long sound-bite. One group looks at the chart and says that it prejudges the issue and tells people that "race limits intelligence." They are entirely right, given a situation in which the chart is not contextualized so that people know what it actually means. The other group looks at the same chart and says, "These are matters of fact, cold, hard, and scientific." And they are right. Both groups are being hurtful, at least potentially. Failure to examine the fact that the high school students in Chester, PA do miserably condemns them to perpetuate the situation for their own children, or see the situation perpetuated for them. Failure to examine the fact that "race" is almost as much a firestorm word as the "N" word for most people makes people like the Stanford group whose work was reported in the NYT, and especially the science reporter for the NYT, agents of abuse, and failure to innoculate the readers of their reports against mistakes of interpretation makes them unintentional allies of the racists.

We cannot walk away from the research, but we also cannot use the word "race" and other problematical terms in the article in an irresponsible way. The fact that some professor somewhere can use the word "race" and knows what (and how little) he and his colleagues mean by it does not excuse his/her use of the term in a public forum knowing full well that the audience will take it to mean "them people."

I don't think we agree on much of this at all, especially since (on the talk page) you rejected my best attempt to contextualize the terms that frame the issue in a way that would answer ZM's very real reasons for discontent with the article, but I can still hope.

Thanks, again, for shutting me up the other day. I would have dug myself a much deeper hole. P0M 4 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Thanks for those remarks, Patrick. They were all constructive. I especially liked the bit about scientists and journalists and how failure to innoculate the readers of their reports against mistakes of interpretation makes them unintentional allies - which is an error I am hoping Wikipedia can avoid. Are race and intelligence related? If so, in what way? How much of it is cultural? How do the expectations of parents, siblings, peers, teachers and society at large affect one's motivation to excel - and how much does motivation matter when it comes to intellectual achievement? Can people become smarter? Has anyone ever become significantly smarter or stupider in their lifetime? Is it good to be smart? Can a book or a teacher make you smarter? (or stupider?) I'd like Wikipedia to provide the answers to all these questions. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 21:14 (UTC)

Has anyone become smarter? Depends. Definitely some have become less able to pass IQ tests and negotiate mazes as a result of brain damage. The only things I know of that increase measured intelligence are (1) experiences that (trivial case) teach some foundational stuff (multiplication tables, etc.) that ordinarily would have been learned at an earlier age and (2) truly transformative experiences in which some kind of kink gets unkinked. (Do you do bait casting? Think of a backlash in a reel of wet nylon 12 pound test line and how much effort it takes to untangle it and get back to fishing.) In computer terms that is analogous to rewriting a computer program that was always at risk of going of into an infinite loop somewhere so that doesn't happen anymore, not analogous to rewiring the computer. Maybe someday we'll be able to repair severed connections in the brain. Then the person would "really" get smarter. P0M 5 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Am I mistaken or are things getting better on the R&I discussion page? I particularly liked the list of questions Zen-master posted recently. I've not paid much attention there, working instead on a textbook. P0M 5 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

I hope it's getting better. They just needed to start listening to each other. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 5, 2005 03:02 (UTC)

a request for mediation from 80.141.193.245

I don't understand the intentions of User:Wyss who is now harshly attacking administrator User:Mel Etitis. May I ask you to mediate since you already know the conflict? See Talk:Natalie Wood. I only wanted to include some additional information which can be found in a new biography on Natalie Wood. User Wyss and some others repeatedly deleted this information. 80.141.193.245 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

footnote standards.

I was under the impression that footnote3 Template:Fn was the new standard. Perhaps that should be the advice given in your help page?--Muchosucko 4 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)

Notes

• Template:Fnb Not sure what you're talking about. Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Mediation for Talk:Jacques_Derrida/Ad hominem

Re your question: I've already but in a request for mediation due to personal attacks and profanity on this page. Please help. Buffyg 5 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)

No luck discussing guidelines with issues already raised; user is not interested in mediation (see User talk:Maprovonsha172). Unless you have suggestions, I'll let the matter drop for lack of reasonable options. Buffyg 6 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I'm having a problem with admin user:Mel Etitis over on the talk pages for Nick Adams and Natalie Wood, also see his talk page if you like. Could you have a look? Whatever you might suggest regarding this, I'll do (period). I think it's "50% personality conflict, 25% esthetics and 25% disagreement on what constitutes a viable source", but I feel rather abused. I've begun a self-imposed suspension of my doing any editing on those two articles for now. Thanks for whatever help you can lend. Wyss 5 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

PS: After posting this, I noticed the anon had posted a message about those pages, above. Didn't know that, don't care. Again, thanks in advance. Wyss 5 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

PPS: I've called user:Mel Etitis a troll, I think thrice. I knew that wasn't the "Wiki way" but I know I can be a bitch sometimes. Wyss 5 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

Here's your penance. Go read Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks and the somewhat longer Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Then apologize to Mel. After that, you should be all right. Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 20:06 (UTC)

I've replied to the message you left on my talk page... on my talk page. I'm also about to send you an extremely brief email. Wyss 5 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

Drat, you don't have an email address specified, but if you care to know what it was, you can email me from my page. Either way, thanks. Wyss 5 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

Wyss

I challenge any editor, faced with Wyss's aggressive and persistent boorishness, to refrain from the occasional acid remark. Follow (if you care to) the "discussion", from my first, standard 3RR warning, and see if you don't feel like making the odd short remark of your own. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

I accept your challenge, sir. (Pistols at dawn! ;-) Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 20:57 (UTC)

:) Wyss 5 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

g theory

Hello. It's been five days since you moved this page. Are you planning on fixing the links to the redirect pages you thus created? Michael Hardy 6 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)

I have begun work on taking care of the redirects for you since it appears that some still exist. Jtkiefer July 6, 2005 01:09 (UTC)

It's not so simple. There are no double redirects, but many of the references are to other phrases, like general factor and so on. I'm also not clear on what the "g theory" is, merely from reading the article - which mostly asserts that there is such a factor, and that it is (largely) "hereditable". I find this less than enlightening. Why can't this encyclopedia just say that smart people tend to have smart children, but that it's not as cut and dried as skin color? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 01:24 (UTC)

For the specialist, "heritability of 0.5" says exactly this! ;) Perhaps we need to do a better job. --DAD ^T 6 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

I tried to redirect them without changing context in the text as best as possible. Jtkiefer July 6, 2005 03:14 (UTC)

I'd like to move this discussion "back" to talk:g theory (which ought to redirect to talk:general intelligence factor. Our readers need to understand what the technical terms heritability and g mean.

See also my comment at talk:normal distribution [1] Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 10:54 (UTC)

Eugenics

I had forgotten about this one, and it seems early 20th century intellectuals - even beloved big shots like Churchill - supported parts of it at first. But it seems to be a sort of snarl word, useful for making discrediting attacks.

Everyone wants to bequeath good things to their children, but no one wants to create a system that will result in screwing things up royally. It's like the ideal of "communism" - sounds great to share everything and eliminate poverty, but without religous freedom and economic incentives it has never worked! (Hey, it's my talk page, I can mention my own POV now and then, okay?) Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 01:29 (UTC)

Yeah, I've struggled with this one myself. Am I supporting eugenics if I think it's a shame that smart women scientists and professionals are dropping out of the breeding pool? Or if I spend disproportionate amounts of time searching for a beautiful/smart mate? Can I tell my friends I'm glad they're having kids and mean it in a global sense? Or does eugenics require some kind of top-down breeding program? --DAD ^T 6 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

If you're the president of Harvard, you better not even mention the "drop out" factor: anything other than a coordinate, mean-spirited campaign by men to keep women out of science must not even be considered as a possible factor. You can keep your integrity or your job; choose one. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 13:29 (UTC)

FW's implication/hint to vote on common sense ideas at Talk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation

On 02:27, 6 July 2005, I posted an affirmative response to FW's tentative suggestion to vote on certain common sense issues here: [2]. I would like to hurry up and vote on these issues in Talk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation, which include mentioning some additional website, mine included. I trust you to formulate a voting strategy, but I don't want to mess around forever on this.Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 6 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)

Cognition

Nice block on Cognition. Totally against policy, and yet entirely common sense. Keep up the good work. That said, he seems to have quickly reincarnated as User:The Scientist. I've blocked that too. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 05:29 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that the general public has no right to edit this web site. Only those volunteers who want to make an accurate and neutral encyclopedia are welcome here. I woke up this morning, doubting whether my block was preventing us from employing the free services of a like-minded contributor.

I have always been bold about forming policy. I try out ideas, and if they work, they tend to catch on. If not, I apologize and do my best to undo the damage. This is an experiment in collaboration on an unprecedented scale, and nobody really knowns how it's going to turn out. We don't want to limit participation any more than we have to, but concentrating all power in the hands of a committee probably won't work any better than delegating all power to a mob of vigilantes.

For those cases when it's not easy to be sure what to do, I created Wikipedia:Policy enforcement log to help Administrators keep each other informed about what they are doing. I made it transparent (open, public) so that all users and potential users can see as well.

I'm not afraid of oversight by other members here. I welcome feedback. I assume Raul, Fred and others periodically monitor the logs. If I've gone too far, no doubt someone will let me know.

But the point is: what will make Wikipedia accurate, neutral and open? I daresay this will require human judgment as to whether specific edits are civil or nasty, neutral or biased. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 10:25 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Act

Hi, this is Simesa. I originally opposed RfM as being too soon, since we had just entered RfP that day - but we started to make a little progress, and others felt that RfM would be useful so I agreed. Now one of the participants, apparently not happy with the slowed debate, wants to negotiate faster (you wouldn't believe how much Discussion there's been since I posted the initial stub on June 22nd). I'd rather do this under RfM now. We have three for mediation now, myself, the primary objector Benjamin Gatti, and the administrator Katefan0 (who came in under RfC). Woohookitty (almost an admin) is in favor of consensus-building as well. Pstudier asn't commented in a few days. El-C is new to the debate. I suiggest that we have a majority in favor of Mediation - could we have a Mediator appointed quickly, to assuage Ben's desire? Simesa 6 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)

I forget what RfP stands for. This whole "dispute resolution thing seems far too cumbersome. But if any two people have (1) a dispute and (2) a desire to reconcile, then Mediation ought to succeed. Can we continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 10:29 (UTC)

NPOV

Maybe loophole was the wrong word. Basically, he was quoting some of NPOV policy but missing others. Example. Benjamin Gatti said that something is considered neutral in a controversial argument if it is attributable. He quoted it right from the NPOV policy, which is fine. But. He missed the fact that it also has to be fair. Stuff like that. So maybe loophole is too strong of a word. In any case, he was trying to get around NPOV by using NPOV and that's just not acceptable to me. I apologize if the verbage was wrong. --Woohookitty 6 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

No, you're fine. If anyone tries gaming the system I'll expose it. We're supposed to describe all controversies as fairly and accurately as possible. Not much wiggle room there. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 19:19 (UTC)

my user page

were you even paying attention? i did not upload any image of a rodent, it was placed on the server and on the page my another user, franbkly i found the image to be rather insulting and juvalile. why would you accuse me of making it in the first place? Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

Then who uploaded it? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 19:59 (UTC)

i have no clue. possibly the user who posted it.(sorry for the tone of my owrding earlier, im having a stress-fest week) Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)

MetroScotty uploaded it. --Lord Voldemort 6 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)

Thanks. I deleted it. I guess I confused you with him; sorry about that. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 20:14 (UTC)

all goodGabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs - unsolicited opinion, hope you don't mind.

Yeah, you're right on the point. it's basically an ego contest. both sides of the border want the name exclusively for themselves. The thing about the balkans that the rest of the world doesn't get a lot, is that these disputes have been going on for so long, it's no longer a matter of civil discussion, it's personal. People identify with the state, even when the state does not hold the best of interests for its citizens, whether the state makes a right or a wrong decision. It's what a greek person would call "passion/pride for his/her country".

it's the same passion that got us the 2004 EU soccer championship, and the same passion that led to our downfall 3 months later and this past june in the pre-world cup games in germany. It's the usual greek cycle: work hard for a short amount of time, achievement of a single goal, take pride in achievement, rest on the fact that they brought in results a single time, and then they "rest"(don't know which word to use exactly) on their single result, ignoring the fact that you got to prove yourself multiple times, not just a single time. This of course leads to hubris, which means that the downfall comes around. the same thing happened with the deliberations of the name "macedonia" on this side of the border, btw, that's why i am digressing. So, any renaming of FYROM would be a blow to the national greek ego and pride. Same goes for the FYROM people: if the name fyrom persists, it would be a blow to their national pride and ego.

The whole point, imho, in an arbitration case would be either: a) deciding who has the historic right to use the name b) what current international treaties name each region. "right to self-determination to name ourselves as we wish to" is inherently subjective, hence, POV (always in imho). Personally, i would go with what international treaties have been signed for the names. you can't get more neutral than that.

Project2501a 6 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)

PS, pardon my bad english, /var/modules/linux/kernel/lang/english.ko is borken today.

I'm OK!

Hi Ed. As far as I can see, I'm OK. I'm on VFD - but I think I'll survive - though I doubt thats what you mean. And I wrote this... It wasn't another of your "playful slaps" was it? :-) William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 22:56:06 (UTC).

No, I wasn't even paying attention; since getting active with the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee again I don't have time for climate. But I always watch out for my friends. Can't have the most famous scientist at Wikipedia getting into a jam, now can we? (Turns out I forget to check the date on this.) Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 00:15 (UTC)

StarTrekkie

Thanks for the review. It now occurs to me that if I'd made it for 12 or 36 hours it would not have been set to expire in the middle of the (U.S.) night. There're some tricks to being an effective admin, I'm guessing. It looks much easier from the "armchair." Well, you make it look easy. Cheers, -Willmcw July 7, 2005 07:40 (UTC)

That's what the military calls a "command function". Always appear cheerful and confident. Never lose your temper. If you have to chew someone out, go ahead. But if they straighten out, put it in the past. I was on the officer track, when I realized my leadership skills might be put to better use in the civilian world. The army's loss was Wikipedia's gain ;-) Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 00:27 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Act

I blew up. I deleted my remarks here - the changes were made by an admin, which is ok by me. Simesa 7 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)

POV cabal?

Ed, I'd like you to look at [User_talk:Salsb]. there seems to be a POV editing cabal. 216.185.232.203 8 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

They're harmless, don't worry. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 13:36 (UTC)

Adminship for WMC

Please don't edit other people's comments. Feel free to add commentary, clearly marked as your own, but when you make an edit to another comment, or in this case the nomination, it makes it look like the creator did that, unless people dig through the history. Thanks. Wikibofh 8 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)

I have made it clear what the strike-outs mean. I can't let the false claims stand. To do so, would turn this thing into a political / popularity contest. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 14:21 (UTC)

Yes you can let them stand, because their not your comments. When you strike like that it changes what someone else said. That is typically reserved for what you say if you wish to change it. Wikibofh 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Look, I wrote the policy on "changing other's comments". Check with Jimbo if you think the special case does not apply. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 14:28 (UTC)

Well you are violating any concievable interpretation of that policy. RfA has rule and decorum. You get a vote and you can comment in the comments section, but the nominators comments are theirs. You are entitled to say what you want in the right place, but if you edits other's comments again and replace comments in you may be blocked for vandalism. - Taxman ^Talk July 8, 2005 14:33 (UTC)

Go ahead and block me, if you sincerely believe that in doing so you are upholding Wikipedia policy. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 14:37 (UTC)

• He would be. From Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption: "Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other users' signed comments..." Wikibofh 8 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

If you are both sure that this policy has no exceptions, please go ahead and do what your conscience tells you is right. But does using strikeout constitute changing? Are you sure enough of that to start a ruckus over this? Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 14:45 (UTC)

• A few things. I am sure enough, however, I'm not an admin, and believe it or not, I go with consensus. Additionally striking is changing, just like bolding would be, because it changes the emphasis or meaning. However, you're not continuing to do it, so at this time, even if I had the power, I wouldn't do anything. Wikibofh 8 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)

Err..how about the fact that my nomination vote is my opinion. You can rebut other people's opinions, you are entirely within your rights to do so, but not alter them. The idea that William is a good candidate for adminship is my opinion, and I reflected that opinion in my nomination. Striking through my comment says, to the casual observer, that I have altered my opinion. If you think that my statements are factually inaccurate (an assertion I dispute), you are free to call me a liar. You are entitled to your opinion, and I take it that you hold that opinion in good faith. But I believe what I said to be factual truth - it is my interpretation of what I have seen on Wikipedia and on the mailing list. People can interpret the same information in different ways. Call me a liar if you want. But please don't make me a liar by altering my words. Guettarda 8 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

Ed, you have a gift for sending my stress level through the roof. Probably reflects badly on me. I need to detact from this. But, duuude...you have a gift. Guettarda 8 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

The watchwords of the wiki workplace are collaboration and creativity, not command and control.

I realise that my reaction to your comments is neither healthy nor beneficial to anyone involved. My challenge, not yours. That said, I am modifying my comments above. Only the first part really matters. I don't think I attempt either to command or control...I think my flaw is that I spend too much time talking and not enough time being bold. That said, I know I am argumentative, so conversation can sometimes be less productive than an edit war (not that I am arguing for an edit war). I realise that I take myself too seriously sometimes. But I believe strongly in Wikipedia and what it as to offer, and I believe that I am acting in the best interest of the project. I think it is unfortunate that this gets to me. For the most part I think your willingness to flaunt flout "the rules" does well for the project...as does Everyking's role as Devil's Advocate. If I did not believe strongly that William's edits were to the benefit of the project I would never have nominated him. I apologise for any comments that were out of line. It was not my intention to offend. Guettarda 8 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Sorry, that motto was not actually aimed at you, but at me! A friend sent me some good advice (see the top of my user page). Thereupon, I realized I was not even following my own previous motto. *sigh* To spell it out, which we must so often do in this text-based medium, I realized that I was trying to control and thus sabotaging collaboration - directly in violation to (1) my motto and (2) the purpose of this website. That is my failure, and I'm crying hot, salty tears of shame as I write this!!

Moreover, I appreciate your sincerity. I really do. I just been here longer than you and know more about it. Either that, or I'm making a colossal fool out of myself (not for the first time!) with all this cavilling and marking up. By the way, I changed flaunt to flout above; hope you don't mind ;-) Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change. Guettarda 8 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I appreciate your not taking this personally. I'm actually on outstandingly good terms with Dr. C. - we only really have the one point of disagreement. And by the way, I changed my vote to neutral, did you see that? One of my best friends at this web site is someone with whom I have a deep, abiding, intractable disagreement; but we see eye to eye on everything else Wikipedia-related so well that we get along great. I hope this W.C. / NPOV / global warming wrinkle doesn't tar up the works for you and me. Cheers! :-) Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 19:27 (UTC)

No hard feelings. And I like your new banner on your user page. I love the contradiction that is Christianity - love your enemy, get salvation as a gift because it is impossible to earn it - I wish that politicians and clerics who claim "Christianity" would try living it. I don't do that good a job - but at least I try to be honest with myself as to my failings. It's ironic that conversion (5 years ago last month) pushed my politics to the left. Anyway, kudos for the banner. Guettarda 8 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

Josephus on Jesus

Hi User:Roger pearse insists on censoring material on Josephus on Jesus that he deems to be cranky despite appearing in published works on the subject, typically those giving the skeptical view. He also adds POV comments dismissing the skeptical side as amateurs. It has turned into a revert war, please help. Kuratowski's Ghost 8 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

Could you make an rfm for this? Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 14:33 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Here is your challenge...

OK, /Satellite temperature measurements is your own copy of the page as it currently stands. Of course, the current version is grossly POV and full of facts that are totally false. So... how would you improve/rewrite it? William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 16:53:44 (UTC).

Referencing books

According to User talk:Mel Etitis you advised contributors to: "just say that X wrote a book which claims Y is homosexual / bisexual / whatever. One or two lines ought to be enough."

I must say that this was a surprise coming from someone who has stated that Wikipedia does not yet have credibility. To me, your statement will counteract any effort to attain credibility and actually will open the door to a flood of conspiracy theorists, religious zealots, terrorists - you name it - with an agenda who can easily (and anonymously if they like) overwhelm Wikipedia articles with tens of thousands of such references to a book. There are a large number of new publishing houses, quick-buck imprints, self-published authors, and self-published authors who create a publishing house name (who can easily be listed on Amazon.com) that have sprung up with the advent of the PC. Added to this, there are numerous printing companies such as TK Printing in Indonesia who will print 5.5 x 8.5 paperback books of up to 200 pages for 78¢ per copy (seventy-eight cents: printed, bound, color cover). As a result, there are now millions of so-called books worldwide that people could quote.

Note too, when quoting any book, even by a supposed highly respected source, it can often be meaningless. A great many legitimate writers refer to things as they see or believe them to be. If called upon, they can properly say it was a minor reference and done based on the best available information at the time and said without malice. No encyclopedia quotes these opinions or references unless they were documented with proofs and then the encyclopedia requires a minimum of one other verifiable supporting source for that documentation. Wikipedia, by its openess to editing by anyone, in fact needs to set a higher standard if it wants credibility. Let anyone quote any book they please that is no more than the author's passing comment, opinion, or allegation, and there will be such a volume of "book" references inserted into articles justifying the contributors assertions that Wikipedians won't be able to undo.

Pehaps you might want to take a second look at your suggestion. In fact, why not use your position and experience at Wikipedia to actually get the ball rolling on a formula for establishing real credibilty. - Ted Wilkes July 9, 2005 16:08 (UTC)

Regarding your statement will counteract any effort to attain credibility: It was not my intention to reduce Wikipedia's credibility. Contrariwise, I feel that not taking sides on controversial or poorly researched matters is essential to maintaining Wikipedia's credibility. Look at the mess Newsweek got into about Koran desecration at gitmo. I think Wikipedia shouldn't try to aid any particular cause by throwin its weight behind an endorsement of a particular charge, assertion, statement or point of view. Please read Wikipedia:POV carefully. Uncle Ed July 9, 2005 16:14 (UTC)

No one said it was your intention. - I'm saying it will be the effect and it already has. You in fact took sides and sanctioned the insertion of anything anyone wants so long as they quote the name of the book and author. A contributor has already used your assertion to place input in the Natalie Wood article that is neither factual nor substantiated. That now leads to a series of counter quotes by other books that too are nothing but unsubstantiated opinions, allegations and the like. That is called an edit war. And yes, I have read Wikipedia:POV -- very carefully. Ted Wilkes July 9, 2005 17:14 (UTC)

I must endorse Ted Wilkes comments about the care required in using print sources, especially those published after 1995 or so. Readers are strongly (but rather amicably :) cautioned that I am not Ted Wilkes. Our paths crossed at the Natalie Wood article. An anon editor made a tactical accusation to that effect to an admin for the purpose of undermining the credibility of editors who asserted the need for credible sources drawn from the documented record. Please run a sockpuppet check if you have any doubts, thanks. Wyss 9 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

Significantly, Wyss and Ted Wilkes seem to be the only users keenly interested to suppress what I have added to the said articles (see their contributions to the talk pages and the repeated reverts they did). On the other hand, they have included other material in the Trivia section or other parts of the articles, which is also neither factual nor substantiated by credible sources. In fact, they did not even cite their sources. Just because THEY included this material, it is O.K. This is what I call unfairly applying double standards. As everybody can see, I have cited several independent sources on the discussion pages to support my view. My opponent(s) claim that all these sources are not reliable enough. I say that this is not true and only the personal opinion of these users. From the beginning of the dispute, their only aim was, and still is, to disparage what I have written, as the facts I want to add to the articles are not in line with their personal views. 80.141.215.104 00:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the anon is the only person keenly interested in placing unsubstantiated gossip into these articles. Wyss 11:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have now cited further sources on the Talk:Nick Adams and Talk:Natalie Wood pages, but User:Wyss and User:Ted Wilkes still continue to disparage all of them and delete what I have written. See also Elvis Presley. I think my opponents (whose opinions, significantly, are usually expressed in similar words) have provided little evidence for their view. They are only questioning the reliability of my independent sources without furnishing proof that these sources are really wrong. They have accused me of vandalism, being a troll, etc. for no reason at all. Not to mention that they seem to take turns in doing repeated reverts, presumably to escape violation of the three revert rule. Indeed, they are unable to cite relevant sources supporting their personal judgement. As everybody can see, Wyss and his "fellow combatant" Ted Wilkes have continually used commentaries on the discussion pages to discredit me and the sources which I have cited according to the Wikipedia guidelines. To my mind, all they have to offer is no more than a biased opinion. Wikipedia wants information based on independent sources. I have cited these sources (books, articles, reviews, web pages). Until they have something worthwhile to offer, i.e. solid sources that will really support their view or disprove my view, I think they should keep their personal remarks to themselves, for such remarks do not help matters at all. The whole edit war is boring as the parties concerned are wasting their time. I don't know why users Wyss and Ted Wilkes are constantly questioning the reliability of my sources and reverting the articles to their last edits. I don't know what else I can do. Perhaps you can help. 80.141.255.106 23:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Wyss has claimed on the Talk:Nick Adams page, "So I can confirm that, over 35 years after his death, we have a passing reference in Lambert that Adams was gay, but the book's credibility has been questioned. Any other references to Adams as gay are even less credible, tabloid-type hearsay accounts which again, have emerged long after his death."

1. The credibility of Gavin Lambert's book which states that Natalie Wood dated gay actor Nick Adams has not been questioned. The reputed author (80) was a Wood friend for 16 years. He has had access both to official papers and to Natalie's own writings including her day book and has interviewed members of her family and her husband, Robert Wagner. Certainly the biography supplies an insider's look at Wood and chronicles everything concerning her life. Wagner gave Lambert full cooperation for the book, telling his friends to share their memories as well. Without that help, the book would not have been complete. Natasha Gregson Wagner, daughter of Natalie Wood, calls Lambert's book "a wonderful biography on my Mom ... that we are all involved with - everybody that knew my Mom and was close to her - and that will really be the one I hope everyone reads. It will be the definitive biography on my Mother." See also Talk:Natalie Wood.

2. In a book which was published in 1972 (certainly not an account which has emerged long after Adams's death), gay actor Sal Mineo, still alive at that time, undoubtedly confirms that there was a sexual relationship between Adams and James Dean. He says, "I didn't hear it from Jimmy, who was sort of awesome to me when we did Rebel. But Nick told me they had a big affair." 80.141.237.28 12:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see the talk pages for Nick Adams and Natalie Wood for my responses to this. I think we're developing a clear consensus on both pages to exclude the anon's material as undocumented and not relevant. Wyss 12:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Significantly, Wyss has also deleted the following passage in the Sal Mineo article which was not written by me:

"While explicit mention of homosexuality was not permissible in Hollywood movies at the time, the reportedly bisexual James Dean dared Mineo to let his real-life desires for Dean shine through considerably in the scenes between them." See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sal_Mineo&diff=18122625&oldid=18085677

This certainly supports my suspicion that Wyss tries to suppress specific references to homosexuality in some articles on Hollywood's gays. This would also explain why this user is frequently reverting the articles on Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, etc. to the version he likes. I have cited several independent sources supporting my view on the discussion pages. I don't know what else I can do to convince this stubborn user. 80.141.252.165 14:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That passage is an undocumented rumour, but an interesting story. Find some documentation for it. The only reference I could find is a dead-end reference at crimelibrary.com, which is not known for its accuracy (authors contribute for free in exchange for book plugs). Wyss 14:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I should add... while the anon makes accusations that I'm "suppressing" content globally, all I've been doing is tracking down his additions of undocumented gossip in four or five articles. A look at my contribution history will further show that his accusation isn't true. He does seem to be trying to insert the words homosexual and gay into these articles as often as syntaxically possible. Please see the Natalie Wood and Nick Adams talk pages for more information about this anon poster's edits. Wyss 15:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss, as every unbiased reader can see, it is your intention to suppress any reference which supports the assertion that some popular male movie stars were gay, although there are several independent sources which prove the fact that they had homosexual leanings and affairs with other male stars. You personally wish that these stars should be seen as 100% straight, but the sources prove that you are wrong. Therefore, you and your alter ego Ted Wilkes frequently disparage the sources I have cited and repeatedly revert articles to the version you like. This is a clear offense against the Wikipedia guidelines. 80.141.228.125 16:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, I've been sort of hoping I could find reasonable documentation Adams was gay so I could reference a secondary source for the article in a professional way (avoiding the anon's phrases like biggest piece in town, for example) and move along. I don't give a toss about Adams' bedroom choices. I care rather a lot about WP's credibility. Wyss 16:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told indeed. Lambert's book on Natalie Wood certainly is a reliable source. The author clearly says, Natalie Wood's "first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams." Further sources also say that Adams was gay and had sexual relationships with other male stars. Where are your sources which prove that Adams wasn't gay? 80.141.252.152 16:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note how the anon demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of how Wikipedia and the historical sciences work. Only the anon's assertion requires proof (or at least some sort of primary source documentation cited by a secondary source). As an editor I don't need to prove anything (never mind prove a negative). Wyss 18:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Insertions

Ted brought up:

insertion of anything anyone wants so long as they quote the name of the book and author

This is not something I agree with. First of all, it should be obvious that not all insertions are relevant to any particular article. Secondly, how one mentions an idea is of crucial importance.

We can't simply say "X is gay" with a citation. Use some editorial judgment, man! Something like,

• Rumors have swirled around the issue of X's sexuality for decades, and a recent tell-all book by Q claims that X had sex with R, S & T.

Anyway, there's also the important question of:

• How important is the personal life of a celebrity? If a closet homosexual contributed to the world of mathematics, computer engineering, music or sports or entertainment ... does this mean we must dig up all we can and parade it for the world to see? Is that the proper role of Wikipedia?

Some of this is not specific to Elvis Presley or Natalie Wood but requires a policy decision. Uncle Ed 15:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Let's move this off of my user talk page. It should go to talk:Nick Adams, or to one of the steps in the Wikipedia:dispute resolution process. Uncle Ed 18:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Question on Community Main Page?

Did you seriously put it there on purpose?--Fenice 9 July 2005 16:16 (UTC) Have a look at the diff. How does it look to you?--Fenice 9 July 2005 16:21 (UTC) Or did you confuse it with the talk-page?--Fenice 9 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)

I don't understand your question of 9 July 2005 16:16 (UTC).

I put my question about Wikipedia:page naming policy on the Community Portal because I wanted an answer. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Have you come to my talk page to help me find out how to name the article about David Sutch? Or did you come "on purpose" with something other than helping me in mind? Uncle Ed July 9, 2005 16:31 (UTC)

No, I would have answered differently, if you were the newbie you are pretending to be. But your edit history shows you have been here much longer than me. So you know where to ask questions and you know how others are likely to react to the diff I posted above. I did, btw just answer your question on the help desk, and yes, that means I skimmed your edit history: are you going to accuse me of stalking now? :-> --Fenice 9 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question - finally - but I wish you had done that first, instead of making all these personal remarks. I marked up your last two with HTML strikeout tags. By the way, if you had gone to my user page, you'd have seen that I've been here since 2001. Uncle Ed July 9, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal

To answer your question - although you have yet to answer any of mine - I think it makes Wikipedia look pretty gosh darn stupid. Especially since the very next paragraph tells me where to go.

• For help, questions, and contact information, you should see Help:Contents.

My complaint was made after going to Help:Contents and finding it decidedly un-helpful.

If you can't answer my policy question, would you like to address my secondary concern? This experience, which began nearly two hours ago, has led to me being insulted and dismayed. Since I am human and have empathy, I can imagine how others might feel, having a similar frustrating experience. I think Wikipedia should be easier to use.

I have written quite a lot of the documentation - though by no means anything approaching even 10%. It's really that vast. But I'm also a professional technical writer, and I know how hard it is to make complex subjects simple enough for newbies to understand - without "dumbing it down".

Are you just scolding me for posting in the wrong place, or what? Why are we having this conversation? Uncle Ed July 9, 2005 16:43 (UTC)

We are having this conversation because you started it. I can see that now that it was an experiment and that is not vandalism, I admit. Still, you knew that that would be a possible reaction, you provoked it.

So your little activist event is not trying to hint that the Community Portal could be improved some, you are saying the Help:Contents could need improvement. I support you on your criticism of the Community Portal. The only thing I know about Help:Contents is is that it is useless, and therefore I never go there and I just think: I might rewrite it some day. I went there my first day here and it is a mess. And probably still is.--Fenice 9 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)

/rolling on my back and tearing my hair out/

If you know that help:contents is useless, then you can understand that AFTER going there and finding it useless, I want back to c.p. and posted my question. It was NOT an experiment or activist event.

And if you skimmed my contribs, you'd have seen that I even said I was not a newbie:

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, although this might be an example of Wikipedia:illustrating a point. I need help, and I don't know where to go, and I'd like an answer, please. (If this request results in fixing the system, all the better. And I'm not a newbie, either. (emphasis added for discussion) [3]

That's from my very next edit, 6 minutes later.

Anyway, now that we're talking, let's find a way to fix this mess. That's all I care about it this point.

I think we need a Help Page that really helps. Let's work on this, and recruit others to work on it, too. Uncle Ed July 9, 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Have you seen this Project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability. Also, Wikipedia might profit from a voluntary mentoring program for newbies.--Fenice 9 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Defeating opponents?

Ed, I'm curious why you changed "achieving one's goals" to "defeating opponents" on the pacifism page. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but "defeating opponents" seams much more specific than achieving ones goals. In my view, pacifism applies to far more than simply dealing with opponents or those with whom they may disagree with. Nonviolent resistance isn't just about defeating opponents. It's about how one chooses to work towards goals as the earlier version stated.

Incidentally, I think your earlier edit to the page which expands the first sentence and broadens the definition is quite useful. mennonot 23:09, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Expansion

I gather you are a well respected and long standing editor. Could you take a look at Template talk:Expansion, and help resolve an issue about whether the template belongs in articles or in talk pages? ~~~~ 13:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

In this diff by Duckech on 14:15, 10 July 2005, in the Schiavo page, he reverts, a third time, and while not a "technical" revert (he only removed the items in dispute, not all the items as a true revert would have turned back to a prior version), Duck nonetheless violates the spirit of the 3RR:

1st revert: here reverts to non-approved "^{" and "}" tags that reduce the text size; Revision as of 03:52, 10 July 2005

2nd revert is here on Revision as of 12:50, 10 July 2005, and again, without ANY consensus or any reasoning;

3rd revert: here, on 14:15, 10 July 2005 , and with dodgy explanations -and without any consensus to make the changes.

(He uses a straw man argument and pretends to be arguing against using the line markers; I don't object to the links, but I do object to putting in tags to reduce readibility by making unnecessarily small text.

I told you we needed help, but you didn't get my message above; I know you're busy, and I know i only posted above a few minutes ago, but I'm going to ArbCom and reporting this a 3RR, and mentioning that mediation hasn't worked (yet), but still giving it a chance.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I just found out that the 3RR says here that "don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." My bad. In any case, it is still an edit war.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Duckecho reverted a fourth time on 15:00, 10 July 2005, here.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ed, a thorough and conclusive rebuttal has been posted on the Adminstrator's Noticeboard/3RR page. Please do me the courtesy of reading it before acting on the above calumny. Duckecho (Talk) 21:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Um... right. I defended YOUR point better than you did; relax, Duckecho: you probably won't get shut down, and if you do, if would probably be a slap on the wrist: In my counter-rebuttal (or reply to your answer, in proper legal terminology), I answered SlimVirgin's concerns, in which she effectively defended you by seeking further clarification. You can count to four, and I admit that you used "creative editing" to get around the "revert tool" technicality. nice try, but it didn't fool me.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• :: Besides, someone else weighed in and pointed out your fabulous logic about your supposed "rights" to revert three times a day like clockwork, lol... Don't you get the message? Think! You have a brain; use it.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ducky and Gordon, anyone in a Mediation gets extra slack on the 3RR thing. I can't be the policeman and the nurse at the same time. So shake hands, make up, and PLEASE take it back to the mediation page. Like, what is so urgent about getting a particular wording in place? Uncle Ed 02:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I never asked that Duck be blocked; I only laid out the proof that he had violated rules, and after he made a smart remark about it & asked for a cite, I found it, and notified SlimVirgin, the admin who initially responded; It made me think he was trying to pull one over on you, as he attempted to go around the previously-reached consensus on the "diagnosed as" settled arguments. You have the proof in front of you, and I merely pushed the train back onto the track. Duck went astray. (Some comments were posted real recently; please note!)--GordonWattsDotCom 02:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, Uncle Ed is nobody's fool. Uncle Ed 14:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Experiment: Michael_Mann (scientist)

Hi Ed. Well, here's another experiment for your busy schedule. Try looking at the Mann article, and my comment [4] and see what you think. William M. Connolley 14:32:49, 2005-07-10 (UTC).

ps: I hope you've noticed that the psuedoscience cabal hasn't deleted anything yet...

Wikipedia:Gaming the system

Here's a chance to act on your policy/guideline. [5] SchmuckyTheCat 17:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

Hi Ed, I understand you're the mediator at Terri Schiavo. Just to give you the heads up, a small group of editors seems to have taken ownership of the article. I tried to do a copy edit today, as there's some awkward English and evidence of pushing a particular POV. Most of my changes were grammatical or to do with the way the sources were presented. The only substantive change I made was adding some material from the autopsy report to the intro (properly referenced and neutrally expressed), and adding that one neurologist who examined her said she was in a minimally conscious state, not a persistent vegetative state (PVS), though seven others said it was PVS. I wrote it carefully and in a disinterested tone.

User:FuelWagon and User:Duckecho have reverted all my edits, and their comments on the talk page indicate it's unlikely they even read them. In addition, I'm being called "Madam," and "arrogant," because I dared to make the edits. All very disturbing.

By the way, in case you look at the history, I have what looks like a large number of reverts to my name. This was because of server problems where I was getting "server not responding," even though the edits were being saved. They're not all separate reverts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power

Hi Ed, please note User_talk:El_C#Nuclear_Power_Protection_Lifting. I may have prematurely lifted protection from the article (please read my comments). As I mention, I should have consulted you from the outset. I am going to reinstate the protection and will follow your lead on that front. If you are satisfied with the protection being reinstated, do not feel obliged to respond to this. Best, El_C 23:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Sealand

Please refrain from making sweeping changes to Sealand without reference to the talk page discussion, and general consensus that has evolved over a long period of time. I have reverted the significant changes you instigated by removing important historical information from the article that allow readers to understand the context of Roy Bates' actions. Also, be aware that Roughs Tower is eventually likely to be merged into Maunsell Sea Forts, where it belongs.--Centauri 02:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

and RFC

please read the evidance and pass judgemntr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2

thanks! Gabrielsimon 02:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not a court official. Try the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.

Or if you are having difficulty making one of your encyclopedia contributions "stick", please tell me what topic / page you are trying to improve. Uncle Ed 14:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon

Oh, I didn't know such a page existed! Ok, so I'll put notices on it from now on. I thought the block log was sufficient. To answer your question: The user in question reverted Mythology four times within 24 hours. I read about the violation on WP:AN/3RR, and took action. I hope I didn't do anything wrong (this was my first block). Oh, and what exactly was the joke you placed on my page? Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 20:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Template:Pelog is only for hard cases and close calls. If you block an IP for simple vandalism don't bother. But Gabriel is more of a Wikipedia:clueless newbie than a troublemaker. Go easy on him, please, and let other admins know what you're doing.

By the way, I asked one of the programmers to make it possible for "blocked users" to log in and edit their own talk page, and *viola!* This is an experimental feature, so let's see how it goes with Gabriel (see talk:Gabrielsimon). Uncle Ed 20:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wikimediation

I've just started a new page at Wikipedia:Wikimediation that I think will add a much less hostile step to the dispute resolution process - something we increasingly need. I've started a few trial pages, and you were one of the people who struck me as a good candidate. Essentially, the process is a non-adversarial request for comments - an occasion for editors to give constructive criticism (or outright support) regarding other users. I encourage you to have a look at the page, and at the subpage for you that I've created there. Snowspinner 20:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Block problem

Ed, regarding your block at 21:12 of FuelWagon (talk · contribs), he's continuing to edit with the same user account despite the block. See his contribs and particularly his comment here. [6] I saw this once before, after a block of Enviroknot, who carried on editing as though he hadn't been blocked. The block had to be reinstated three times before it "took." I mentioned it to Raul at the time, who talked to a developer, but no one could figure out why it happened. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)