User talk:Ed Poor: Difference between revisions

When Calton reverted your edits to Jack Sarfatti, you reverted back without explaining why. Calton expressed genuine concerns with your edits, and I think that some explanation is needed to sort this out. --Apyule 05:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I explained on the talk page. Please don't try to "build a case" against me, on this one, when I am enforcing Wikipedia policy. If I err slightly, please (1) help me to correct my tiny error and (2) do not thwart my intent, which is to get the article to conform to Wikipedia LEGAL and NPOV policy. Note that I am working closely with Jimbo, Anthere, and Fred Bauder on this.

The others have ganged up on a newbie who is also a notable person. There is an article about him entitled Jack Sarfatti. His username is User:JackSarfatti. He was blocked indefinitely for "making legal threats", but as I said on the talk page (either article, user, or both) I unblocked him in consultation with the blocking admin, after speaking with Jack on the phone.

He doesn't know our rules. We should explain them to him gently, instead of just blocking him permanently.

There is a legitimate policy question about how to characterize his "critics". Are they anonymous bloggers or newsgroup posters? Are any of these critics also Wikipedians? What have notable people said about him, like Martin Gardner or any Nobel-prize winning physicists?

Note that I am not taking sides on this. I have not even examined his theories! I only want the article about him to conform to our NPOV policy, which I believe requires us to give proper sources for those who support or oppose his views. Uncle Ed 13:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you haven't been editing neutrally. You've removed substantiated and relevant material, and abused both rollback and page protection. I respectfully suggest you might want to ask a different mediator to take over this one. --fvw* 16:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to build a case against anyone here. While enforcing wikipedia policy is needed and I thank you for it, I don't think that your actions have been totally transparent. That is why I asked for an explanation for the specific revert, which I still don't think has been given. --Apyule 01:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're building a case. I just asked you not to (see above). I the thing you say I "removed" was placed on the talk page for repairs. It might be relevant, but it is not substantiated, unless you think Wikipedia should accept anonymous criticisms as a source.

After checking with fellow admins on IRC, I rapidly unprotected the page (as a glance at the page protect log will show. Did you look, or are you "trying to bulid a case"?)

It's not an abuse of rollback to undo an erroneous revert - not if you explain the rollback on the talk page, which I have.

You're beginning to remind me of the "tenants from hell" described in this week's episode of my favorite comic strip: [1].

Please help me to craft a fair and neutral article. Please do not abuse the system to destroy or subvert the system. Uncle Ed 16:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to sit around while other Admins try to build a case against me, to get me de-sysopped. Not when Jimbo and Anthere asked us to fix the page mentioned above.

I'm supposed to be on vacation.

I dived in and tried to straighten this out, and this is the thanks I get?

Forget you! I'm out of here. - Ed

Don't go, Ed. Please. You're held in high regard by many Wikipedians. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, have your vacation, but make sure you come back. You're liked and respected; well, more than liked. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you are one of the most respected editors here, and all your contributions and efforts are highly appreciated. You would be a great loss to the project. Now, take your well-deserved break, and come back when you feel refreshed. Don't worry about us while you're on vacation - we won't break anything! Seriously, though, please do rejoin us. Your efforts are valued. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of the kind of thing I have to put up with here. Well, I've had it. We need a new system. A wiki of unlimited openness is simply not up to the task of organizing the world's knowledge.

Consider me on break if you want, but I'm really upset. And I'm not coming back for a long time. Uncle Ed 19:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You're absolutly right, it's amazing what you have to put up with here--Armen Schrikken 19:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All that links to is his removal of your insult, a violation of WP:NPA that he removed and then you come back and do another.--MONGO 02:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the day when I went out to play and a bird flew down to my hand, didn't want to leave. When I asked to keep it, I remember my dad said, "Yeah son, let it go away. Hope that it comes back here to you some day. Just let it go away and if it comes back, you know it's here to stay."

Since then I've gone through changes. Since then I've gone through life. Since then I found me a beautiful woman I thought could be my wife. She said she really loves me but she said she couldn't stay. She said I've got to go my love to find things my own way. So I let her go away, hope that she comes back here to me some day. I let her go away and if she comes back, I know she's here to stay.

There's not always reasons for the things in life, but it's comforting to know within your mind, if you love something enough and you've done all that you can, if there's one thing I have known and learned first hand, sometimes you have to just let it go away. Hope that it comes back here to you some day. Just let it go away, and if it comes back, you know it's here to stay. --Depswa 19:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle Ed. You might remember me from the Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs naming dispute, about three months ago. As you might know, the naming dispute is still not resolved, and I desperately need your advice. It's better to give a short overview of the dispute and the latest developments

Namely, as you might know, or as it can be seen here, the common name for this ethnic group is Macedonians, and all of the international organisations, all of the goverments (except Greece, Cyprus, and maybe Romania) refer to this ethnic group as Macedonians. In addition, all of the encyclopedias (except MSN Encarta) refer to this ethnic group as Macedonians. It is also the most common name for this ethnic group in major media outlets, and the remaining use of the Macedonian Slavs name is in decline. (The BBC officially apologized for using this label - [2]. I believe that, according to the NPOV policy: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views?

Perhaps, most importantly, according to the new Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline, or more precisely the section concerning specifically this type of problems, which has become an official naming convention in the meantime - there is no reason for the Macedonian Slavs label. Macedonians is the self-identifying term of this ethnic group, an Wikipedia shouldn't decide whether the have the right to identify as such. Moreover, most ethnic Macedonians vigorously protest against the use of the Macedonian Slavs label - [3], which they find offensive.

The Macedonian Slavs term is also ambigious - there are other Slavic speaking ethnic group in the region, most notably the Bulgarians.

Several attempts have being made to put an end to this dispute, according to the dispute resolution procedure but unfortunately they ended as a failure. The poll was an evident disaster, and involved cheap ethnic voting and sock puppetry on both sides. The RfC, which I posted here a month ago, and took place here, obviously didn't attract the necesarry number of neutral users. Except those already involved in the dispute, only REX and Nat Krause commented. They both agreed that we should use Macedonians (ethnicity) name.

I've invited the representatives of the Greek POV to go the Mediation several times, starting up here [4]. The efforts to end this dispute was supported by all participants in the discussion which are of different nationalities (Albanian, Bulgarian, Irish, American, Slovenian, and of course Macedonian), including a neutral admin (Zocky who has elaborated the Mediation issue in greater detail here [5].

As you can see in the talk page, this request for Mediation was rejected by the all the representatives of the Greek POV. After a brief period, Bomac moved the article to Macedonians (ethnic group), which was redirected back to Macedonian Slavs by Chronographos, and then redirected again to Macedonians (nation) by REX. As this is likely to become an another edit war, I would find your advice helpful:

What should be done in order to put this dispute to rest? The situation is rather specific, as Greeks actually refused to go to Mediation, and don't provide evidence to support the "Macedonian Slavs" label. Should we take this dispute to Arbitration? Should I request it to be protected as it is (Macedonians (nation))? Or something else? Please could you answer me these questions? --FlavrSavr 22:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence was produced by myself, User:Theathenae, User:Matia.gr, User:Miskin and most importantly User:Dbachmann, who pointed out that Macedonia is a historical and geographical entity of longstanding existence, and a minority of its inhabitants cannot monopolize the designation "Macedonian" for themselves, especially given their very recent (20th century) emergence as a separate ethnicity. User:Dbachmann astutely pointed out that you are attempting to "impose common usage" of the term Macedonian so as to make it refer to your people by default. The matter was voted on last June and the majority voted to keep the title. You not being satisfied with the vote, have continued to pursue the issue. You asked for mediation, and stated that I refused. This is not true. I said that "I cannot meet your schedule" and that I would not be available to take part in the mediation process until mid-November.

In order to avoid the continuation of edit wars, I proposed to you that you edit the article and then ask to have it locked until I was able to participate in Mediation. You, User:Bomac, User:REX and User:GrandfatherJoe reacted with indignation. Then Bomac, with REX's assistance, went ahead and moved the article anyway, thus negating the very need for dispute resolution. And now you come and ask if the article should be locked. How do you spell "hypocrisy", FlavrSavr? Well, hold your horses, because REX and GrandfatherJoe (a possible sockpuppet of REX) have already asked that the article be locked. Now that the article reflects your POV, having it locked it doesn't look so bad anymore, does it? And all of a sudden, the likelihood of an edit war is alarming to you! Two days ago it was not.

Furthermore, REX and GrandfatherJoe justify "their" request by saying that the multiple redirects have completely messed up the article and its talk pages. Except that it was their own redirecting that caused the mess in the first place. Just look at the edit history. Well, unfortunately it all looks like a plan to me.

I find your behavior (WRT this instance of arbitrary and unilateral action) thoroughly dishonest. I intend to participate in Mediation starting in the second half of November, and intend to request an Advocate, one of unimpeachable neutrality and knowledge of the region, in order to assist me. For the time being I cannot and will not submit to such disingenuous and back-handed behavior. Chronographos 00:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The plan proceeded like clockwork. Some admin fell into the trap, and just locked the articles in their present, unilaterally changed form. Well done! I am not holding my breath waiting to see what steps you will take to ensure that "freedom" is restored. Chronographos 00:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Chronographos, Dbachmann pointed out that we cannot impose common usage to this term, not knowing that the term was already in common usage. After proving that he was wrong about the "common usage", and not answering my questions in the RfC, I can only assume that he doesn't hold that position, or if he is, he is now willing/able to prove it. I would be glad if he does prove this claim. --FlavrSavr 07:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the claim that in the June poll the majority voted for the "Macedonian Slav" label is a blatant lie. The poll was a draw. 29:29. As you actually don't see the need to see the outcome of that poll, and claim that it was a majority, by default, please see this Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Poll#Outcome. --FlavrSavr 07:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third, your request was unacceptable for several reasons, an I explained in the talk page. I have already stated that, until the naming dispute is solved, I don't intend to get involved in other disputes, and that I will contact an admin these days. I did that, and I don't see any foundation of your accusations for hypocrisy. The mediation request has been made. You refused to accept mediation and these are your words: No need to wait one more day then: I have other priorities (including a couple of Wiki-projects of my own) for the next month or so, therefore I, in my turn, do not accept your Mediation proposal. Those "priorities" didn't stop you to write a whole page of calumnies against me, huh? --FlavrSavr 07:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann is an academic linguist from Zurich, a well-travelled man with a wide variety of interests. Chances are he's travelled to more countries than you have ever heard of. Don't assume what he does or does not know, accept or was persuaded about. Apparently in this disagreement you and he had, you decided what the outcome was. 'Nuff said. I retract what I said about the poll: the outcome was indeed a tie, and I seem to have recalled it wrongly.

You state that you "don't intend to get involved in other disputes". Likewise I don't intend to get involved in mediation until mid-November. I don't see why you get to call the shots and I don't. Unless you want to come and help with my house renovation, that is. It starts Monday. Chronographos 08:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on your request for Mediation in mid-November, I don't see any reason why the article should stay as it is. You have rejected mediation now, and therefore there is no reason why I shouldn't take advice what should be done now. We can have mediation, then. But, until then, neither me, nor the others are obliged to wait for your house preparation. As for the offer for help, I might come, if you guarantee that I'd get a Greek Visa ;). Regards. --FlavrSavr 11:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my house renovation is no reason for the article to "stall". Neither was your exam schedule last month, but you did not pursue the mediation issue then. Apparently only you may have other priorities for a given period of time. Others may not. Chronographos 11:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I didn't require the article to stall then, did I? Nevermind. See you in November, good luck with your renovation. --FlavrSavr 12:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was too busy all last week to wrap my head around this one. I gather a lot of this hinges on the true meaning of the English words Macedonia and Macedonians. A related question is probably:

• Who are the real Macedonians / Macedonians / Macedonians? (note 3 slightly different formats of the links)

I hope that parties to this dispute (here at Wikipedia) will agree to describe this naming dispute fairly. Can we all agree that Wikipedia should not take sides on this? That Wikipedia should leave the matter unresolved, but only say this side feels that "Macedonia" refers to X, while that side says it really should refer to Y? Uncle Ed 12:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• [Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms] might not give you what you want, but I think it's a good starting point.

Your request for my intervention might result in a reformulation of Wikipedia policy, but I hope not. I think we can resolve this with a bit of good-natured discussion. Uncle Ed 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at talk:Macedonia naming dispute. Uncle Ed 13:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (VERY MUCH) for your response, but you're missing the point and the main dispute. The main dispute is not about the name of the region, but the name of the ethnicity, namely the majority of the Republic of Macedonia. I'll try to explain the problem as short as I can.

The wider region of Macedonia, is divided between the Republic of Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The Republic of Macedonia does not encompass the whole region of Macedonia.

There are several ethnicities living in the region of Macedonia - Greeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Albanians. There are several ethnicities in the Republic of Macedonia, and the majority of them are the Macedonians (the article about them, for some reason, is to be found at Macedonia (Slav)). The current Macedonians article is about the ethnicities living in the region of Macedonia, of whom, only the majority of the Republic of Macedonia, use Macedonians as an ethnic identifier.

The dispute is not about the region of Macedonia, but for the ethnic majority in the Republic of Macedonia. Namely, the Greeks oppose that this ethnic group should be referred to as Macedonians, as they believe that this would be monopolization of the "Macedonians" identifier. They feel that they are the true Macedonians (the descendants of the Ancient Macedonians). Their proposal is to label the majority ethnicity of the Republic of Macedonia as "Macedonian Slavs".

The majority ethnicity of the Republic of Macedonia, however, refuses that term as derogatory. Their stance is that because they are the only ones that are identifying themselves as Macedonians in an ethnic sence, there is no harm in referring to them as Macedonians or ethnic Macedonians. (The vast majority of foreign sources, and encyclopedias refers to them as "Macedonians", as well)

I propose that the current Macedonians article remains as it is (referring to all the inhabitants of the wider region of Macedonia), while we should move the current Macedonia (Slav) article to Macedonians (ethnic group). What is your opininon on this proposal? --FlavrSavr 16:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Meanwhile, you might also want to read Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names, as well. When ChrisO applied the table method, (see the talk page, the result was a clear win for the Macedonians (people) option. Also, a question: Is this some sort of Mediation? At the moment, that doesn't make much sense, as the Greek POV refused it? However, I welcome the involvement of neutrals in the dispute, in any forms or shapes. --FlavrSavr 17:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a sort of Mediation. The other "party" doesn't have to say anything for a mediation to be successful. The only condition for success is that there is no more conflict!

Just kidding: actually, we do need to come to an agreement of some kind. Give it time. And take a look at Talk:Macedonia naming dispute for some preliminary work I've done to prepare for this mediation. Uncle Ed 18:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. We really need more neutrals. If you ask me, the question is about application of Wikipedia policies, namely the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy. (Did you see it?) But that's me. Also, it would be a good thing if Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Poll#Resources section is applied at Talk:Macedonia naming dispute, after some cleansing of vandalism. And I assure you I gave this dispute time - I mean, 4 months have passed, and we still don't have a solution :-). So, I'm not pushing you, but, I would really appreciate if we could solve this dispute in a matter of days or weeks, not months. Regards. --FlavrSavr 20:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nods tolerantly. Do you know how long it took to settle the Wikipedia naming dispute over Danzig/Gdansk? If the "ethnic Macedonians" thing gets settled before Christman, consider yourself lucky. Uncle Ed 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! And that dispute isn't even a bit as complicated as the Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs dispute is. Oh, well... --FlavrSavr 21:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you leave? I haven't followed all the goings on, but with the amount of time you have in, maybe a break and then come back. Let me know if I can be of any help.--MONGO 02:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, it's sad to see you go. I hope you find peace at the end of the rainbow... please come back when you feel ready. Mamawrites ^{& listens} 10:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC) PS -- I moved your "I quit" message up to the top so the Macedonians will see that you are not available to help with mediation right now! Mamawrites ^{& listens} 10:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mama. And thanks to all who wrote in to express your support in this time of difficulty for me. Uncle Ed 16:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As some of you guessed or realized, I'm not really quitting. But I was rather upset. Things did not go as I had planned or desired. But I take heart from the many messages of support sent my way, and have found new inspiration.

But this doesn't mean my job is any easier. Rather, I see the challenges as forcing me to go up to a higher level of devotion, tempered by a new wisdom:

Satan says to God, "I became an evil scoundrel as a result of the fall, but you and good people can't use methods that are similar to mine, can you? I may like to fight, but you're not supposed to enjoy fighting. Even when you take a blow, you have to endure, don't you?" Thus, God's philosophy is one of non-resistance. [6]

These words from Rev. Sun Myung Moon provide the answer to my prayers. They are not a comfortable answer. They do not make me feel contented or assured. Yet they carry the ring of truth: they feel right to me. Uncle Ed 16:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't picture Satan saying "scoundrel" unless he was played by Tim Curry. --Zephram Stark 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thanks, Z. You seem to have identified Lucifer with Satan. Sounds like you're well on your way to finding the "chosen one". Uncle Ed 17:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I see you have helped out on the Talk:homophobia page before and I want to enlist your help again. It seems that some editors there refuse out of principle to include a statement that "some opponents of homosexual acts believe the term 'homophobia' is a controversial epithet." I think I have provided a pretty good case for citing some form of controversy around the use of the term, but others disagree. Please help with a third party NPOV view because we have both reverted twice now. MPS 19:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It hinges on the meaning of the word controversial. Try saying instead that:

• Some opponents of homosexual acts object to the use of terms like 'homophobia' or 'homophobic' on the grounds that ...

You might also point out that

• Some opponents of homosexuality bristle at being label 'homophobic'. They argue that the label is incorrect, since it implies that hate or fear homosexual persons and that it is irrational for them to do so. They argue further that their objections to homosexuality are not motivated by hatred or fear, but stem from a rational appreciation of ... [or are firmly rooted in religious / moral principles]

Bear in mind when you discuss this tangled, fractious and highly contentious issue that different parties use the word homophobia in different ways. Uncle Ed 19:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my talk page:

You wrote elsewhere:

You are correct that we should not dismiss someone simply because that person is not accepted by mainstream science. What we should do is report the views of those who support and those who oppose any such person, and attempt to indicate both the numbers and the credentials of those who support and oppose, as well as attrributing specific comments to specific individuals whenever possible, and not express as absolute truth any side of any such controversy

This is an excellent set of general rules. I agree wholeheartedly. You are to be commended for being able to express these principles, and to advocate our adherence to them considering how much trouble has, er, arisen in our dealings with user:JackSarfatti.

Rest assured, he will remain blocked unless and until he withdraws his legal threats and gives at least the glimmer of a hope that he'll stop being so abusive to Wikipedians. Note that I do not say "other Wikipedians", because if he can't abide by our civility rules, he cannot become a Wikipedian. Uncle Ed 20:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am very glad to hear it. I was afraid that he had been left unblocked either becauae some bend over backwards to not 'oppress" those who express fringe views, or because of his legal threats. i was not about to block him myself, as an involved editor.

Do you think it would be a good ideat to draft Wikipedia:Dealing with fringe science and include a version of the above? or is this redundant with WP:NPOV and other relevant policies. DES ^(talk) 20:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've already posted your text there, crediting you as the author. Uncle Ed 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment on the talk page of this article. thought you may care to support my nomination for oil painting as a Collaboration of the Week by voting at: Wikipedia:Collaborations_of_the_Week. --bodnotbod 05:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Zen-master Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master, which you commented on, has been closed, with the following remedies:

• Zen-master is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case. Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that Zen-master be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive, they shall place a template {{Zen-master banned}} at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify them on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including Zen-master, at the end of the ban. If Zen-master edits an article they are banned from, they may be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, up to a week for repeat offenses.
• Zen-master is banned for one week for making personal attacks.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know this. Also, I have proposed that per-article blocking be put into effect by the developers. When they do so, we can be even less restrictive on remedies like this. Uncle Ed 16:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[13:18] Cool_Cat_: I dotn know
[13:18] Cool_Cat_: Ed_Poor edit your userpage
[13:18] Cool_Cat_: Ed_Poor now we are all skeptical
[13:18] RobChurch: Don't worry about it.

I never thought you failed on Price-Anderson, but rather that you were making good progress until other events went out of control. I felt forced to ask for a new mediator when Ben started editing again and your meter was bright red. I'm really glad to have you contributing! Simesa 18:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, and I think the change of Mediator will be beneficial. I can't do everything myself, and trying to do so isn't nearly as helpful as encouraging teamwork. Uncle Ed 20:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, is there anyway you can take a look at Anne Frank? User:Redzen has violated the 3RR with his latest revert (see bottom of talk page, he's reverted four times in 24 hours) and I'm all out of reverts. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 01:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slaps both of you around with a wet trout. ;-)

I learned to say that on IRC and am very proud of my new vocabulary. But seriously, you shouldn't have gone toe to toe over this. 1RR is enough. Then you discuss it on the talk page.

I'll see you both tomorrow, after you've cooled off, okay? Uncle Ed 02:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'll still thank you, Ed. I knew exactly how you would respond, and you didn't disappoint. :-). Now, leave the fish alone! (except for this one) BTW, I forgot to actually say thank you for your help. Mahalo. --Viriditas | Talk 10:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Hawaiian? Check out my article on a movie set in Hawaii: 50 First Dates. Uncle Ed 14:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, with all due respect, Six Sigma may very well be just a buzzword, but that's no reason to summarily eliminate the vast majority of a page that describes the development and the theory behind the process/methodology/attitude/whatever you choose to call it. I will grant you that there isn't much on actual methodology, but that's like eliminating the biographical section of the Victor Hugo article because there's not enough analysis on his writing. Instead of just removing content, it would serve us better to improve the mediocore methodology sections that the article already has. I'm planning to condense the stuff you removed and put it back in the article, but let me know if I'm misunderstanding the reason behind your edits. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you got the reason correct. But perhaps I was too hasty. I felt I was sweeping up some trash.

If there is a theory there, I'd love to read about it. I'd even like to know how they developed it. Hey, don't get me wrong: my dad made a living applying it. I just never saw any more to it that a 5 or 6 step checklist.

On the other hand, you could reduce Deming's idea to "Plan, do, study, act" and call it PDSA.

Please go ahead and condense; I probably went too far to fast. But if I got you to get your act in gear, maybe it was good? :-) Uncle Ed 02:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe it was good :). Someone came along a couple months ago (right as I was on my way out for a wikibreak) and added a rather large section of information that was already mostly summarized right above it. I've removed most of that. Basically, the theory that's covered is the reasoning behind the six in six sigma; where it came from, etc. As for the theory behind the methodology, that's something that we still don't have. I need to check out a book from the library or something to really start to nail that stuff down. But that's yet another project to work on when I should be paying attention to school :). In any case, I think the second and fourth paragraphs of the "Why 6" section speak on your concerns, but let me know if there's still a problem. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On User Talk:JackSarfatti you wrote: "If you'll tell me - right here on this page - that you're planning to withdraw your threats of legal action unconditionally - then I will gladly unblock your Wikipedia user account. I believe the other Admins will support this.

"You can then assure us of your good faith by deleting all the adverse comments you have made about other contributors, as your first act upon returning."

I would object unless Jack Sarfatti promises to abide by WP:NPA as well as by WP:NLT or at least not to make such outragous personal attcks in future as he has made in the past.

I also do not wish his attacks against me removed from any of the relevcant talk pages -- i want them to remain to document what was said and how people responded. if Sarfatti now regrets or disavows those comments, let him strike them through, and/or post an apology for them, but if they are removed I will be inclined to revert.

I add that the "archive" of his talk page is currently a red-link, which is against good practice, particualrly in a case like this. Are you inb mid-move with the archiving? DES ^(talk) 03:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The archive's on the talk page of the redlink. --fvw* 03:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think your last edit summary was a little hypocritical? silsor 03:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Ed, I'm not sure if what you told User:JackSarfatti (as quoted by DES above) is true. I suspect that other admins may have trouble supporting a warm welcome for that user, given his behaviour so far. DES has shown remarkable restraint, given the quantity and nature of the abuse User:JackSarfatti has heaped on him.

Given this edit, Jack–at a minimum–owes an apology to the community for his shameful behaviour. I wouldn't even consider unblocking him without some sort of enforceable agreement to abide by WP:NPA and WP:NLT. It would help if he demonstrated an ability to abide WP:CIV, too. Otherwise, I can't see any benefit to Wikipedia that might accrue from his unblocking. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TenOfAllTrades. And, DES, I started the archive but lost network connectivity. I hope someone has completed it.

Jack phoned me this morning (8:00 A.M. California time) and promised everything. I'll check his user talk page this afternoon, because I'm busy right now; there's no hurry on this.

I suggest a cautious and tentative welcome, and I agree with the idea of using strikout instead of deletion. If this thing ever blows over, we can archive the talk pages in question - but I see that as a matter of months, not days. Uncle Ed 16:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the archive process, and the link is now blue. I see that this user has indicated that he approves of "removing" the "legal action statements". I do not see a clear promise to abide by WP:NLT in future. I also do not see any mention of civility and personal attacks, and I would like to. DES ^(talk) 16:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note for DES regarding Jack's statement that he will abide by WP:NPA and WP:NLA and strike out the personal attacks he has made. (I will set aside for now his statement that he has not made any personal attacks for 'several days'.)

As far as I know, DES has suffered the most unpleasantness from User:JackSarfatti; if DES approves of the agreement (or any amendments and additions as may be necessary) then JackSarfatti could be unblocked...with the understanding that he will be on a very short leash. Where possible, I'll try to keep tabs on Jack Sarfatti, too—I don't want to contribute to the article, but I don't mind stepping in if other editors think they can kick Jack while he's down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the note on my talk page, and the diff linked to in that note. My response:

1) As long as Jack Sarfatti abides by the promises he made in that diff, i have no objections to his editing. I have a suspicion that he may fall afoul of WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR, but I am willing to assume good faith and wait until that happens, and I hope it doesn't.

2) I hope that other people will keep an eye on his edits, at least to the Jack Sarfatti article, and in any case if he returns to his former patterns, that he be brought up short.

3) I have no intent to "kick Jack while he is down". I think that nagative views of him are sufficiently notable that reports of them must be included in the article, but any such views ought to be properly attributed and sourced, and any positive veiws that can be similarly sources should also be reported. Limited personal prefernces that do not affect the encyclopedic value of the article I think we should be soemwhat accomodating on.

4) I would be willing to help show him the ropes on wikipedia, but given our prior interaction, it would probably be best if soemone else did this. I think it would be a very good idea if soemone undertook to give hime a but more of a tutorial on how wikipedia works.

5) While I would be gratified if he chose to apologize for past comments, I don't want that made a condition of unblocking -- a coerced apology is of no value at all.

In short, if you feel comfortable in unblockling him, I will not object. In view of our past interaction, if I see a problem with his future editiong I would engage another uninvolved admin rather than block personally. I hope that there will be no reasion to think about doing either. DES ^(talk) 14:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very gracious of you, sir. I'll remove the block, and let's see what happens. Uncle Ed 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Is there an overall point you're leading up to? As before, I'm not going to agree to broadly generalized terms that then get followed on by some "and so therefore we can conclude..." I don't intend for this comment to be somehow belittling of your effort, as the spirit behind it is greatly appreciated, it's just not the way I prefer to try to come to a meeting of the minds. I would rather you just be direct with me. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, right. I think I've done this to you once or twice before. Makes me seem kind of manipulative, doesn't it? [Uncle Ed gets ready to pounce]

Wham! He catches the poor little mouse in his sharp claws! (bad ed, bad ed!)

Okay, what I'm leading up to is a discussion of the U.S. Congress's agencies (like GAO) as "objective sources". I'm going to give my opinion that even a highly respected non-partisan agency of the world's most benevolent and well-liked nation (America), nevertheless should not be automatically accorded "authoritative source" status. Rather, we should say that nearly everyone respects agency X as a reliable, unbiased source of information.

I'm wary of endorsing any source. Who's next as a source? Bodies created by the UN? Uncle Ed 19:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh! Well, I understand your position. I'm highly skeptical in general. But I can tell you that in my line of business, and I mean reporting at the national level, these entities are generally considered fine for use as source material on items such as these. Historical facts. I don't see why Wikipedia should be treated any differently, particularly when there's an in-line link provided right there for anybody to see. There are definitely times when I take information from, say, the GAO, and I do identify its source -- but that generally only happens when this reporting entity is reaching some conclusion, taking a position. I.e., our research showed that Bush is a bastard. I'd never just write that kind of thing, regardless of the source, as a plain fact -- I'd say the GAO found that Bush is a bastard. But this isn't necessary when using an entity like GAO as a basic summation of the facts behind some historical something. Either it's true or it's not, and I have no reason to think the GAO would not properly summarize the facts behind some historical event. It's fine to then say "but groups X Y and Z say that this is REALLY what was behind it." I'm not trying to quash a diversity of critical opinions. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about situations where a Congressional agency and some obviously partisan lobbying group are at odds? [Uncle Ed gets ready to pounce] Shall we say (Wham!) that CBO said the measure would cost $10 billion, and Citizens for Fair Energy Taxes said it would cost $25 billion? (poor little mousie & bad ed!) Uncle Ed 19:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that speaks to my point. CBO does its own original cost-projecting. If it crunched numbers and came up with that, then I'd source it to them. Often CBO and Congress itself have different numbers. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it doesn't really support your point over mine. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your post, you tell me to request mediation when the problem occurred while you were mediator. I don't need any more of that. Since it doesn't appear that the mediation committee is eager to answer my questions, I'll leave you with a few questions, instead.

Show me an NPA violation in Neuroscientist's post that deserved a warning from you.

Show me an NPA violation in my /block directory that qualifies as a "clear and obvious personal attack" [7] worthy of a second block by you.

Explain to me how you want from saying "Slim moved too far, too fast" [8] to attacking it as "sneaky way of building a case", "gaming the system in a hypocritical bullying way", and "spurious" [9].

Explain to me how you block me for NPA and then days later tell me "I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!! [10]. And explain to me how I would not have been blocked for posting such an educational lesson to someone such as, oh, say, SlimVirgin.

Tell me exactly how you, as mediator of the Terri Schiavo article, managed to ignore any grievances regarding SlimVirgin's edit containing factual and NPOV problems, her multiple denials of a single factual error, her multiple accusations of policy violations on our part, and yet as mediator you warned Neuroscientist for criticizing SlimVirgin, blocked me a second time for working on an RfC against SlimVirgin, attacked the RfC against SlimVirgin, adn then attacked me personally. How, exactly does that count as successful mediation? or even mediocre mediation? Duckecho, Neuroscientist, and A ghost were all good editors and left immediatly after this whole fiasco. Do you think it may have had something to do with the fact that mediation failed them miserably? Or am I to believe that their complaints against SlimVirgin were completely baseless? FuelWagon 22:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall counting this as a successful mediation. By definition, if one of the sides remains unsatisfied, then it is not successful. It has stalled because (1) you don't want me to continue and (2) no one has asked for me to be replaced.

If we are nowhere, would you like to get somewhere? What would that place look like to you? What do you want me to do to get you there? Uncle Ed 23:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

apparently, discussing this with you is a public problem. check your email. FuelWagon 02:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No reply yet. Do you not want to use email to discuss this? FuelWagon 18:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. How about doing this as a Mediation by email? If you agree, please make an RFM at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Uncle Ed 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mediation by email? Uhm, ok. [[11]]. FuelWagon 21:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ed,

I got drawn into a physics article, a topic on which I am at least well enough read to be able to tell when something is clear. The article originally had a request/warning on it indicating that it was too obscure to be helpful. I have managed to get it clear enough that the warning was removed. However, there are places that are so unclear that I can only guess what the Electrical Engineer who wrote the article was trying to say. Actually I suspect that he may be flat out wrong, but since he hasn't made a clear statement I can't be sure.

I e-mailed him a couple weeks ago and he seemed eager to have help getting his writing into comprehensible form. But later when I have asked him questions on the Discussion page he ignores them. The only responsive reply he has made so far was to object to one thing that I had changed, and that was an easy fix, just a word choice thing. I don't want him to feel that I am attacking him personally or something, but I also have been stung so many times (especially in high school) by thinking I was dumb when in fact the writing was incomprehensible that I am not happy leaving something around that looks so problematical for others to get stranded on.

I am moving in the direction of hacking (in the software sense) the most problematical things and seeing whether he will respond when some of his core points are given major changes, but I'm not sure that this is the best approach. Any ideas?P0M 02:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It took me many years to get over that. I finally ran into some really smart and VERY considerate engineers who convinced me that if it's not clear to the educated layman, it's probably - nonsense!

It might be true, but if the writer can't make it clear to ME, that's not MY fault!!

Conversely, as volunteer writers for this project, I suggest that each of us take the responsibility for making our special and important knowledge clear to others. I have enjoyed our relationship in the few short years we have worked together, Patrick. I don't know anything about horse psychology other than what I have been told by people who (1) cared about horses enough to learn how they think, feel and behave and (2) cared enought about the reader to EXPLAIN all this in simple terms.

It's people like you, Patrick, who give me hope for the success of this project. People who care about the topic and the audience. People who are willing to make the effort to share their knowledge with those who want to know.

Thank you! Uncle Ed 03:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I am trying to take the sting out of anything I have to say before I say it. P0M 06:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your intervention in the WS page. You requested to meet you in talk. Did you mean in the WS's or in your talk page? Cheers. Daryou 19:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either place is fine. It's usually quieter here, because I can archive and/or erase comments as I please. It might be too "hot" at talk:Western Sahara, and I don't want to get any sand in my mouth or eyes. So maybe we should talk here? Uncle Ed 20:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly summerized my arguments in the Answers section in WS talk page. I see that Koavf refuses any discussion and don't respect your requests. Daryou 23:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I get a real hostile feeling from that talk page. We've been talking "at" each other in the Edit summaries. This often happens at the beginning of an encounter like this.

Have you been talking with user:Anthere at all yet? Uncle Ed 23:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every one uses the talk page of WS except of Koavf, and the encounter began longtime before. The conduct of Koavf after 10 October 2005 seems to me very stronge because he continued his activity in WP except in the WS talk page. He refuses the discussion but continues to revert the WS page. Anthere said that she doesn't have time to mediate in this affair [12]. Daryou 23:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll discuss this with the mediation committee get back to you. Uncle Ed 23:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that Koavf discussed finally. He said that he was in the UN basement for one day to explain his lack of discussion. I didn't respond to his personal attacks. I'm aware that you don't have enough time for all those disputes. I just wanted to tell you that I proposed either a WP survey or to accept third party proposals made in that talk page by the Minister of War and Nlu. I'm waiting now for Koavf's and Arre's answer. I really need your advice to resolve this dispute, what do you think. Thank you very much and good luck. :-) Daryou 19:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been studying ways of getting more and better quality results, in software development, manufacturing, schools (student achivement) and writing encyclopedia articles. My research is not complete, but you can see some of it in:

• Hawthorne effect - studying people affects their performance (very long article, donated this week by a UK professor)
• Pygmalion effect - expectations matter: believeng in people affects their performance

Actually I think that sometimes they also self-identify as M/S - I've left a note on the talk page. Take care. +MATIA ☎ 14:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point! The frequency of self-identification is important. See you on the talk page. Uncle Ed 14:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, also, kindly request to check what Greek users had said in the past and avoid guessing (I could expand on that, but it would be better that you'll see it on your own). With my regards, +MATIA ☎ 14:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. Guessing is bad. I'm still catching up on my reading about this problem. Uncle Ed 14:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ko.wikipedia.org article uses "하와이 주" for its title, but "하와이주" (no space as in title) throughout the article. Any idea which would be better to use? ¦ Reisio 02:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Soldier Investigation WAS 4.250 08:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like what I did. It's tricky, writing without bias, because I am a partisan myself. But it helps in matters like this to be open about one's opinions. So here goes.

I believe the US should not have withdrawn from Vietnam, although I am critical of several policies. When I served in the US army (1982-1984 an 1986-1989) I heard a lot of stories from combat veterans: what they did and what they saw. There was plenty of ethical ambiguity ther, to put it mildly.

My personal feeling is that the US had good intentions, but poor strategy and highly ineffective tactics. I still don't think the army has "learned the lessons of the Vietnam War", and that's one reason I dropped out after my second enlistment.

"Anti-war" rhetoric nearly always takes the side of the Communists. It dismisses all criticism of Communist tyranny, omits any mention of Communist atrocities. Do you know how many boat people died trying to escape after the Communists took over all of Vietnam? I suggest reading Doan Van Toai's book, Le Gulag Vietnamien (he wrote it in French, Vietnam being a former French colony). Uncle Ed 14:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check this, and I'll probably should take it to my ArbCom case, since I am the only Greek editor who still tries to discuss and I am confronted by a certain group of users. +MATIA ☎ 14:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better do a Request for Comment first. And if that fails, try the Mediation Committee.

But let's back up a bit. I love ancient Greece, if for no other reason than I'm fascinated by the mythology and stories of heroes: Athena, Zeus, Achilles, Odysseus, and all that. And I get along pretty well with Greek people in New York City.

What kind of confrontation are you getting? What are they not letting you say? Uncle Ed 15:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote Check this I was talking about User:Macedonian adding (sneaky v.?) "Kalogeropoulos, try" to your comment.

Ed,I do believe that you are neutral, but please try to avoid comments like that if you can. If you, and the rest neutral admins read the Macedonia related talk pages thoroughly, you can understand what is happening here. I don't like it when I read, you people in Europe are strange, or something like that. As for Greek assimilation, I think that the WP article has a certain pov that one could dismiss even with comparing it to the equilavent article at the jewish encyclopedia (I've read both but don't remember the links right now).

I'm already involved with an open ArbCom case [[13]], and I would try to parse User:Matia.gr/Evidence if this situation weren't so frustrating. It's times like these that I feel I'm the only greek editor who is so stuborn and haven't, yet, quit WP.

When a greek reads, for example, wikipedia documenting the name negotiations, he sees that Greeks were afraid that the golden larnax with the Vergina Sun would be stolen. Greek POV: the Vergina Sun was discovered (it was unknown before) 1978. In 1992 RoM used it for the country's flag. Greece asked that country (first of all) to use a different name. They stopped using that flag (I repeat Vergina Sun was discovered in 1978) and changed their constitution. What did they add and what did they change? That they don't have territorial pretensions against Greeks. They 've just stated what would be obvious for other countries in Europe and America. +MATIA ☎ 17:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wow, this is starting to get complicated. let me rest up for now and take a fresh look at it all on Monday. Efharisto! Uncle Ed 00:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ouranio Toxo, Rainbow Party. Merge and redirect to the older, perhaps? +MATIA ☎ 15:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. I was about to put a {{merge}} on that. Uncle Ed 17:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Upholders of the Wiki

This Order is awarded to you for your exceptional and distinguished contributions on wikipedia. --Jcw69 21:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, this page had a copyvio recently resolved (after a year of edit warring over, among other things, some copied text).

The current page has had essentially the same copyvio added again.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't edit the page without resolving the current copyvio first. It's hard enough when anonymous editors re-insert copyvios for thirteen straight months, over and over again. I'd rather not have to fight with a long time wikipedian who knows better.

See the article's edit history and Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Copyvio_and_derivatives.2C_again. There are other charges of copyvios after this section that I haven't looked at and I don't think will affect the resolution. --Duk 14:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand any of that. I mean, I know what a copyvio is (and that it's bad); and I know it's rought when anonymous editors keep re-inserted stupid stuff; and I know that edit wars don't get us anywher. That's not the part I don't understand.

Could you take some time, here in oasis of Uncle Ed's living room, to tell me briefly what the "copy violations" issue is all about? Specifically, are people violating (1) academic standards which prohibit plagiarism, (2) U.S. laws about distributing copyrighted written material, or (3) am I missing the point entirely because it's something else?

I've been with this project nearly 4 years, and I think I understand what's required, what's optional, and what's forbidden. Help me to help you, by giving me a bit more clarity. Uncle Ed 15:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To make a long story short - last sept ('04) an anon started inserting coptied text from www.bigmagic.com (the text was probably published elsewhere previously). Fast forward over a year of editwars and the copyvio was eventually morphed into a derivative work (the copyvio was never delt with by reverting to the pre copyvio version and a feeble attemp was made to partially re-write it). The page was eventually listed on WP:CP, where it languished for a long time because nobody would touch it, and more edit wars ensued over the copyvio tag staying in place during the listing. In the course of resolving the copyvio there were discussions on the talk page and at wp:cp. I asked for additional input at WP:AN. The copyvio was eventually resolved by reverting to the pre-copyvio version a couple of weeks ago, and in the process trashing over 400 edits and a year of work.

The same copy-vio has been reinserted into the article again and needs to be reverted. I'm planning on doing this if no one else does it first, but am going slowly due to the contentious nature of the page.

Looking at the talk page will show endless bickering, arguing and obfuscation. Whereas the actual problem is very simple; some copied and derived writing. I'm just focusing in the talk page section noted above, there is a lot of other idiotic crap floating around on the talk page at the moment. If you want more detail you'll need to go back and dig up discussions on the archived talk page, wp:cp, wp:an, etc. Should only take a few days :)

I have no interest in the page except resolving the copyvio, I've never edited it otherwise. I spent a lot of time resolving the last copyvio and it's heartbreaking to not be able to keep an anon from re-inserting copyvios over and over and over again. --Duk 16:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the copyvio, but I did see the bickering. I replaced your scary copy-vio notice with a freshly-written, perfectly legal version of the article. I am know the primary author, having supplied 75% of the text of it.

The old "work" still exists, but might have to be re-inserted, one piece at a time, if these pieces are not themselves copyvios.

I would suggest that if any verbatim quotations are inserted, they be placed in quotation marks and be clearly tagged with a web link. Uncle Ed 16:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ed and Duk. May I step into your abode briefly? I'd like to make a few comments and observations, but I promise to keep it simple and concise. 1) I'm the "anon" that has been working with Duk recently to resolve alleged copyvios in two related articles. 2) The paragraphs Ed Poor has rewritten aren't the same paragraphs Duk, DTC and I are concerned with in regard to alleged Copyvio. You are messing with the wrong stuff, Ed  ;) 3) Duk is in error when he describes the present questionable text as "the same copy-vio that has been reinserted." The text that was at issue a few weeks ago was removed, and was never reinserted during the rewrite. Check the records. The "anon" has not reinserted anything over and over again. The present text under review, however, appears to be also derived from the same source materials. Duk and I apparently disagree as to whether this actually constitutes a copyvio. 4) I believe that Duk is sincerely trying to act in the best interest of Wikipedia, and is not politically or otherwise motivated in his actions regarding these articles. I don't share the opinions of certain ... ahem ... passionate recent contributors to the Talk page. 165.247.221.190 18:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

locked only while investigating the "copyvio" accusation

I shall await the results of your investigation. 165.247.221.190 19:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can stop waiting. I don't have the authority to hold everything up. I must investigate as a peer. Uncle Ed 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you guys want some coffee or anything? I might even have some donuts or chips back here somewhere . . .

TDC has started a new revert war with me.

Despite what you said here at the Winter Soldier Investigation site: [14]:

Alrihgt, here is my last plea. Do not remove content just because it appears to be mostly comment. Rather, use your brain, read it thouroughly and edit it. There's a reason why it's called edit this page. Just because one sentence in a paragraph is copied, don't delete the whole thing. Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly states "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed". The only case where you should remove ALL content is if the entire thing is a clear and cut copyright violation. Also, if you take an idea and rewrite it (i.e. put some creative effort into it) then it is no longer a CP. The next time you observe a CP, do not just delete it right away. Read it and see if there's a better way to summarise it and then fix it. Deleting it is a last resort. I'm pretty sure the policy on this is very clear. Remember: don't just go around deleting stuff. That's counter-productive to what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish in the long run (i.e. store as much encyclopedic information as possible). Sasquatcht|c 21:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to change the content as we speak, and he continues to put up the copyright notice. See the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hughes-Ryan_Act&action=history

As he mentions on his talk page he is a wikistalkers:

Beware the wikistalkers. Wiki members who investigate certain users contributions and continually revert them.

He targeted me just because I brought to everybody's attention his aggressive tactics, history of abuse, and frequent bannings in the past.

Please keep in mind TDC's history of being banned from posting and his tactics, all discussed at length on the 3RR site that his friend Duk posted:

165.247.208.115

Thanks for the note and the help dealing with Winter Soldier Investigation. According to the talk page there I'm a power hungry jingoistic bully who is conspiring with my buddy TDC to further my evil cause and silence the brave souls trying to educate people with the truth :)

I'd like to believe that the people slinging insults there don't understand;

• why we revert pages to the pre-copyvio version
• the difference between derivative work and presenting the same facts with one's own words
• wikipedia's requirement that fair use be attributed
• etc...

But maybe they do, who knows.

Anyway, re-starting the article is a good idea. --Duk 01:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the 3 bullet points above. And thanks for your support on the re-start. I won't be touching it again till Monday. I'm tired. Uncle Ed 01:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about the newest attack of TDC?Travb 02:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's going to Mediation. If so, I obviously will not be the Mediator. I wonder who will be appointed? (I'm hoping Anthere will come out of retirement for this one.) Uncle Ed 17:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Uncle Ed. Please see comments on my talk page. Also, please use this page for any further communication. Take care, Macedonian 02:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you know better, so I won't insult you with the boilerplate I've been using when new users do this, but could you please at least put your reasons for deletion in an afd subpage after tagging the article? People are getting confused when all they have to go on is "I found this article with an afd tag on it". See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistical process control. —Cryptic (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]