User talk:Ed Poor: Difference between revisions

New talk on bottom, please:

Pre-election stress

Come back soon, Ed. While obviously you've got hot-button issues like the rest of us, your normally even-tempered mediative (or should I say meditative?) personality is extremely valuable and encouraging to many of us. Good luck destressing....I imagine you'll feel a lot better on Wednesday morning, even if some other Americans wake up a little crestfallen (I admit, I don't share your political viewpoint, but I respect our mutual right to disagree amicably). And if you should wake up to bad news, well, come back here and edit away your blues. :-) See you soon, I hope. Jwrosenzweig 21:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good work

Hehe, October surprise - I just sat down to write it myself, when I saw you had beaten me to it by a few hours :) →Raul654 23:53, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Don't let the mailing list tempest get you down, you're doing great work on Wikipedia. Jayjg 16:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

Thanks for the support, you all. I'm not a saint, and I get discouraged just like anyone else. I've been having a lot of mood swings since mid-October, and I predict there's an even bumpier road ahead. -Ed

Current Talk

Okay, that's pretty much it for now. I've been here for 3 (nearly 4) years, and that's enough for anybody.

I've gotten together with a few friends, and we're going to make our own encyclopedia. (Don't worry, we'll follow the GFDL; we're not going to be like those websites at "forks and mirrors" who steal content: nope, whatever we borrow will be fully and properly credited & cross-linked.)

Don't hold your breath, the web site isn't open for visitors yet. We have to re-learn all the lessons that Wikipedia's early pioneers labored to learn. And that will take weeks and months. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:14, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

This sounds almost like a farewell. I hope we haven't seen the last of you yet, Ed. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:53, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)) Hmmm. I was just going to offer you belated thanks for this [1] - hope its not too belated.

I accept, and a quick glance at My contributions with show that I'm still around. I'm just gonna be shifting my focus. I'm glad you're still participating. Wikipedia MUST have a real, live working scientist (at climate). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for that. May your stressmeter stay forever green, and I await with interest to see what your new project might be.

Gosh, you're against murder and immorality! Cadr 23:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Makes me real special, huh? ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Behaviourism

Rather than use reversion, I've decided to discuss your edits to the behaviorist page in the context I see them.

• Positives: Yes, you cleared up some erroneous pieces of information, and added some useful information about the approaches, which I found interesting. Have you quoted the sources you've used to write these things.
• Negatives: 'pasting in something my friend wrote' is a vacuous summary. What has your friend wrote? Is he a behaviourist psychologist? If so, his viewpoints might be relevant to this article, if not, what are they doing here? Clarify the edit summary. Also, I feel you edited a perfectly good introduction (most FA's on wikipedia have a similar length for their introduction) into something that though has good content: "It is a form of materialism, denying any independent significance for mind. Its significance for psychological treatment has been profound, being one of the pillars of pharmacological therapy.

"Its founder, John B. Watson (1878-1958) rejected introspective methods and sought to restrict psychology to experimental laboratory methods. His disciple, B.F. Skinner, sought to give ethical grounding to behaviorism, relating it to Pragmatism." It is now not so suitable an introduction. Perhaps you could combine it with the old introduction? I reckon that the introduction definitely needs to state that the behaviourist approach assumes that behaviour is determined by environment only, either through conditioning or reinforcement. Also discuss possible changes on the talk page. What say you? --Knucmo2 18:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you say it: the behaviourist approach assumes that behaviour is determined by environment only"

Well fair enough! --Knucmo2 21:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

peace

I struck it out because I found it inappropriate for the talk page, but had already posted it. I don't want to pick a fight with you. I do not think it is "anti-American" to be disgusted by torture (that is what happens to people extradited to Usbekistan, I am sure, they don't take people to Usbekistan so they get a few hours of sleep deprivation, I am confident), or by the idea that human rights are dependent on whether the human in question wears a uniform. It would be very american, in the positive sense of the word, to stand up and say these actions are wrong. Especially should you be outraged if you claim to be opposed to immorality and murder, which I assume you imply are "un-american" vices. But as I said, I can accept your disagreement, and generally stay away from these topics. regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I'm trying to fix the anti-American sentiment article so that it deals with the issue you raised. Let me see if I'm hearing you correctly:

It's not "un-American" or "anti-American" to criticize US gov't policy - or what Americans do. Am I hearing you right? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Main Page intro

Please add a period at the end of the second line of Template:MainPageIntro; its omission on the front page is pretty embarassing. Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 19:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello Ed. I personally preferred the old introduction. I said in my edit summary that I felt it was more concise and that it's worded better. I also personally feel that it makes more sense; but this is obviously very subjective. If you disagree then you can revert, but please start a straw poll or something (or just tell me and I'll do it).

Sorry for reverting you, I trust that there will be no hard feelings? :)

-Frazzydee|✍ 22:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It's okay, I was just being bold. I knew something so "up front" as the {{MainPageIntro}} shoulda been discussed first. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:13, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005?

talk moved to talk:Koran desecration controversy

debate moved to user:Ed Poor/Koran

talk now moved to Talk:Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 -- Toytoy 23:30, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, you're an admin. Can you do us a favor and rename this article back to "Guantánamo Bay Qur'an desecration allegations"? It's generally agreed (see Talk:Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Thank you for your help! -- Toytoy 01:06, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's done by another people. Thank you anyway. -- Toytoy 00:16, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

China History Forum (serious POV problem)

I have noticed that for the last several days, the article China History Forum has been extensively altered to suit the point of view of its founder, General Zhaoyun. This could imply self-promotion and misrepresentation of facts. May 27, 2005

No problem, Ed

We simply see this kind of issue from very different perspectives, and that's okay. (Letting that sort of thing BE okay is an important part of what makes this country great, of course.)

I have a feeling we both feel very passionately about issues we consider to be particularly important. Let's just try to coexist and understand that America can mean lots of different things to different people at the same time.

Your blue-state pal, BrandonYusufToropov 21:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

21:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You are most gracious, kind sir.

Actually, Ed lives in NY, another blue state. Not true? -- Viajero | Talk 14:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

True: My apartment is a tiny red lifeboat floating in Template:MapQuest

Full disclosure:I have relatives in upstate NY who seem uneasy with their color assignment... :) BYT

Hmm....

Uhmm, Ed? Why did you put a stone on my Go-board at User:Gkhan/Go? Newbie test? Who's the newbie? gkhan 16:31, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I assumed it was something like that :P. I know enough about you to assume good faith gkhan 16:57, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Variables

Oh, I see. You are looking for Variables. Right? - Rlw (Talk) 20:30, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! I wasted a wholee afternoon trying to reinvent that wheel: PAGENAMEE gives you the article name with underscores.

Glad to help. So now we can delete Help:Curly braces, right? :-) Rlw (Talk) 21:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Tried twice. Some kind of glitch.

Here's my living memorial to the page that wouldn't die (from template:curly braces):

Template:VERSION

Clearing the main page caches

Ed - if you want to clear the main page caches, you don't have to make a dummy edit. You can do an &action=purge, or (for the main page) go to the talk page, and click "Purge the cache" →Raul654 18:06, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Spring Heeled Jack

Hi Ed! I reverted your changes to the introduction of the Spring Heeled Jack article. This article is not a hoax—as the article states, Spring Heeled Jack sightings were widely reported throughout Victorian England. Spring Heeled Jack, rather than being some legendary or mythical beast, was most likely the work of one or more pranksters who took delight in scaring young ladies. JeremyA 18:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Idw-pui Zeimusu | (Talk page) 02:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unification Category

FYI: When I added the category:Unification Church to a number of articles I (automatically) put them on my watchlist. Cheers, -Willmcw

Oh. That's not as flattering as my false assumption, but since "sanity means dedication to reality at all costs" (M. Scott Peck) I'll have to live with that :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:19, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I always enjoy seeing your edits, Ed, and watch for them whenever possible. I do suggest you start a blog. Some of your writing is too good for an encyclopedia. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've joined the Unification Encyclopedia Project as Technical Consultant and Wikipedia liaison. They (we?) will combine:

• original articles
• rewrites of Wikipedia articles
• exact copies of Wikipedia articles

But maybe I should start a blog, too. Thanks. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Possible new mediator and committee chair

Mgm has nominated himself to be a mediator and indicated he's willing to take over as chair. In an effort to help keep the mediation process alive, it would be nice if you could comment on this at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. --Michael Snow 20:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation help

I researched the various members of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and felt you might be of assistance. Unfortunately I found myself involved with an ANONYMOUS user whose only edits have been to three connected articles: (David Bret, Elvis Presley, Nick Adams). They have done things that meet the Wikipedia criteria for Vandalism. They began by deliberately inserting complete fabrications and after being caught, used distortions. Prior to my falling into this matter, this user had already bullied other parties into giving up by constant reverting and verbal diatribes on the Presley talk page. I really do not want to become involved in such things and as my record at Wikipedia shows, I prefer to do legitimate work. However, if people with an agenda who are prepared to insert outright lies and created distortions come to Wikipedia their work makes mine and all other honest contributor's efforts redundant. I find all the procedures on Wikipedia a maze to follow properly and as such, would you mind helping me in this process? Thank you. Ted Wilkes 18:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I would call this false accusation by User:Ted Wilkes an abuse of the Wikipedia guidelines, as this user repeatedly deleted passages I have written in articles and on discussion pages, which were not in line with his personal opinion. This is indeed vandalism. This user's accusations are made for mistaken reasons. See Talk:David Bret, Talk:Nick Adams and Talk:Elvis Presley. In my opinion, Ted Wilkes is identical with users NightCrawler and JillandJack who are, or were, under a Wikipedia hard ban. See User:DW.

I'm astonished that you should take the line that you did with Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs); he clearly, and after many warnings, continued to delete other Users' comments that were critical of him. On what ground do you say that he was the victim of some ploy or conspiracy? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I have corrected my mistake (see user talk:Ted Wilkes). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response — it may well be that he's sinned against, but all I witnessed were his sins. perhaps when he goes back to editing he'll handle things more sensibly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reality Check

Having watched a previous situation that turned me off from contributing much to Wikipedia, I'm going to comment here with respect to the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule as it was applied to the User:Ted Wilkes referred to here.

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule stipulates:

• "After making a reversion, do not do so again more than twice within 24 hours of the initial one. This policy does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism."
• If you find yourself reverting a considerable amount of edits by a banned user or a vandal, it may be appropriate to block the user or IP address. If you are not an administrator, you should list the person on vandalism in progress.

Further, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR it reaffirms this:

• "if you find yourself reverting edits due to simple vandalism, you should list that person at vandalism in progress."

Wilkes followed Wikipedia policy and went to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress [2] and provided the specifics of what he saw as vandalism with User: 80.141.x.x. As well, when the vandalism continued he followed proper procedure and posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. At this point, the matter is in the hands of the Wikipedia authorities to act. They did not and one must wonder what is the purpose of all these pages of procedures and a few hundred Administrators if no one acts on the vandalism or even to overrule Wilkes.

Wilkes followed procedures and went to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and inserted the names of the articles which he wanted protected with the required reason. The User: 80.141.x.x. then inserted a personal attack and argumentative comments, similar to those he had used on the talk page with Wilkes and the previous users that they (User: 80.141.x.x) had driven away. Wilkes then rigidly followed Wikipedia policy as specified on the "Wikipedia:Requests for page protection" where it says: "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies" and noted his action as such:

• 00:58, 2 Jun 2005 Ted Wilkes (Moved comments by anonymous user to proper location on the talk page)

Despite being reported as a vandal, User: 80.141.x.x reverted Wilkes until finally Wikipedia:Administrator User:Thryduulf stepped in and confirmed Wilkes statement as correct with the following edit:

• 21:01, 3 Jun 2005 Thryduulf (→David Bret AND Nick Adams - removing section. request actioned, both parties aware. This page is NOT a place for comments.)

Wilkes request for page protection on the Elvis Presley article was assessed and agreed to by Wikipedia:Administrator Smoddy who inserted a Vandal notice (Vprotected) as follows: 21:45, 3 Jun 2005 Smoddy (protection template)

After having vandalised the Elvis Presley page and it now protected, User: 80.141.x.x then ignored both Wikipedia Official Policy and Wikipedia:Administrator, Thryduulf's assertion that This page is NOT a place for comments, and reinstated his comments into Wikipedia:Requests for page protection .

Having filed a detailed complaint as to vandalism in progress and having his request for page protection granted by Wikipedia:Administrator, User:Smoddy for vandalism carried out by User: 80.141.x.x, then Wilkes' reversions did not violate the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule because it states that the policy does not apply to correction of simple vandalism.

Assessing this situation, and the conduct of User: 80.141.x.x whose only contributions are to the three disputed articles, it is obvious something is wrong. Worse still, User: 80.141.x.x had previously done the exact same thing to others on the Elvis Presley page and after getting away with it then, was free to attack Wilkes. Once he got rid of Wilkes yesterday, he then was free to start reverting the Presley article again which he did and when User:Equintan stepped in to try to correct things, User: 80.141.x.x then reverted him. Adding insult to injury, User: 80.141.x.x posted his personal insults against Wilkes on Your Talk page. (18:16, 5 Jun 2005 80.141.217.19)

It seems to me that people with a record of consistent quality work should not have to spend their time, nor be forced to deal with the aggravation, just to defend the integrity of a Wikipedia article.

Talk about a good way to turn off contributors, this is it. Karl Schalike