User talk:Ed Poor

No muss, no fuss

Ed, please ignore the dispute pages. There is enough conflict already without a new fight between you and 168 breaking out. Thanks. Angela . 17:46, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

As you wish. --Ed

That Vizzini, he can ... fuss.
I think he likes to scream at ... us.
Probably he means no ... harm.
He's really very short on ... charm. [1]

Sock it to me

BTW you added that sock puppet accusation and the other angry words to a protected page. I deleted it, along with the complaint page I made about you. All I wanted to do was to foster a discussion that might help us to deal with users like Lir, and Lir in particular. That seems to be happening, so I'm happy to move on. 168... 15:22, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you're happy, I'm happy :-)

Thanks for the vitamin-rich apology. Being somebody who knows how to apologize trumps being somebody who occasionally shows his anger.168... 15:54, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Trolls thrive on evil nutrients; your appreciation of decent food proves you are a real person! --Ed

Bureaucrat

Hi, since Tim is asleep, would you mind taking a look at m:Bureaucrat There's some small wikis that have a huge backlog of sysop requests and it would be nice to handle that for them. Thanks. Pakaran . 20:17, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to sign up for Bureaucrat status there. Meanwhile, is Bmills awake? I'm signing off for the weekend in less than 2 hours... --Ed

I'll look into it, sorry - I just thought you could handle the outstanding requests, and people could handle it from there... Pakaran . 20:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Regarding User:Lir

(apologies in advance; I could not reply in WikiEN-l because of problems with my PC)

Ed, On January 14, 2004 in a WikiEN-l post, you requested specifics regarding Lir?s behavior in Wikipedia. I have some opinions and some specifics for you on this issue. I have not been involved in any of Lir?s edit wars, but I have observed them closely, and I will say that (IMHO) Lir baits and insults people, snubs well-mannered reasoning, and is both passive aggressive and contentious. A less POV way to provide you with specifics, however, is to list for you the history of Lir?s edit wars and the history of pages protected because of those edit wars. Let the specific page histories and talk pages speak for themselves.

Less that two months into Lir?s new life here, he fell into edit wars. Since that time (early November) he has been involved in edit wars in at least 20 different articles, resulting directly in the imposed protection of at least 15 of them. Six of those protections are currently active. (A rundown is listed below.)

Yes, an edit war can happen to just about everyone once in a while. In Lir?s case, however, it has happened continually for four straight months. Six articles are currently under protection due to edit wars involving Lir. He will no doubt have a defense for each of edit wars, but their growing number gives us an insight into his approach to resolving conflicts and his disregard for community. These accumulating edit wars and page protections waste admin time and admin brain energy, and they create a sour mood among users.

I recommend Lir?s hard ban be reconsidered. Lir is not someone who ?once was lost but now is found.? His behavior is no better than it was leading up to his first hard ban.

Sincerely, Kingturtle 03:13, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Edit war and page protection history (more recent listed first):

Nervous system: Lir is currently involved with an edit war than began January 1, 2004; the article was protected from January 15 to January 29; the article was placed again under protection on January 30.
DNA: Lir is currently involved with an edit war that began January 3, 2004; the article was protected from January 15, 2004 to January 22, 2004 due to the edit war, and is now protected again.
New Imperialism: Lir is currently involved with an edit war that began December 12, 2003; the article is currently protected due to the edit war. The article was previously protected from January 15 to January 29, 2004, and was placed again under protection on February 3.
Nucleic acid: Lir is currently involved with an edit war that began January 17, 2004; the article is currently protected due to the edit war.
Socialism: Lir was involved in an edit war from January 6 to January 7, 2004.
2003 U.S.-Canada Blackout: Lir was involved in an edit war from December 1, 2003 to January 2, 2004; the article is currently protected due to the edit war.
Death camp: Lir is currently involved with an edit war that began November 24, 2003; due to the edit war, this article has been protected since January 15, 2004.
October 2003: Lir was involved in an edit war from December 7 to December 8, 2003.
Extermination camp: Lir was involved in an edit war from November 21 to November 24, 2003.
Zyklon B: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 21, 2003.
Bush family conspiracy theory: Lir was involved in an edit war from November 19 to November 20, 2003.
Johannes Brahms: Lir was involved in an edit war from November 12 to November 14, 2003.
Joseph Goebbels: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 12, 2003.
Anton Chekhov: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 12, 2003.
Impressionism: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 12, 2003.
Fyodor Dostoevsky: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 12, 2003.
Evolutionary socialism: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 7, 2003.
Richard Neustadt: Lir was involved in an edit war from November 1 to November 7, 2003.
Second Industrial Revolution: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 7, 2003.
Ferdinand Porsche: Lir was involved in an edit war from October 28 to November 9, 2003.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: Lir was involved in an edit war on October 20, 2003.

Jay

Hey Poor, question for you at Talk:Scientific units named after people. Jay 08:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Middle East

UncleEd, you asked me a question on the Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004 page. I responed to you there. Could you follow up. A statement, for User:Viajero's sake ;), of whether or not I answered your question would be appreciated. Thank you.

As you noted, the distinction between one's own views and the standard accepted view as currently reflected in the media does not seem to be one that is discernable for many at Wikipedia. OneVoice 16:27, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I will respond today, and I’ll probably “move” this talk to another page (which I’ll “link” to). Thanks for your patience. --Uncle Ed 16:42, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We are about to have the same problem with Viajero deleting material he objects to on the Al-Aqsa_Intifada page. All parties in the region agree that the barrier obstructs and decreases the number of "acts of violence". User:Viajero is deleting this information without providing any counter examples to support his position. Your assistance requested. OneVoice 18:42, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is it really true that “all parties in the region agree” about this? If so, what about parties outside of the region? In general, information shouldn’t be deleted but attributed to whoever is advocated that POV.

Yes it is agreed by all operational personnel, both those trying to attack and those trying to prevent attacks. I have never seen anyone question that the barrier will make it more difficult to commit attacks. Furthermore, there have been very few breaches (perhaps none) the fence around Gaza since 1996. This is not for lack of trying. OneVoice 19:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You know that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the hottest issue on the planet right now. I appreciate your willingness to talk things over with me; and I will try to mediate between you and Viajero, so that we can minimize the number of protected pages or “complaints to the authorities”.

Thank you for having the patience to deal with this matter. One of the central problems in the matter is the inability of people to discuss the matter, preferring rather to grandstand on the issue. OneVoice 19:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, no contributor’s position is relevant to the articles! We shouldn’t be arguing for our own positions at Wikipedia. Does this sound strange to you? (You answered my last question; please answer this one, too :-) --Uncle Ed 18:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Strange? Not at all, it would be very nice, much better, if citations were provided for any statement that is disputed. I regularly do this adding the citations to either the Summary at the time of the change (author, book, page number...see Amin al-Husseini for example) or the talk page if additional data is required.

A problem that is evident on the Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004 page is that discussion is not occurring. Rather people are fleeing the discussion to raise different issues rather than face the issue currently being discussed (User:Viajero regarding my answer to your question there), or declaring that they are unswayable on an issue. (User:Luis Dantas). How does Wikipedia deal with these two behaviors? OneVoice 19:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

UncleEd: Viajero is now active at (diff) (hist) . . M Palestinian terrorism; 16:50 . . Viajero (Talk) (Terrorism against Israel --> Violence against Israel) as well....Google searching?

Zero0000 and Viajero working together on Israeli_terrorism as well. OneVoice 19:06, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Want to team up? If two determined contributors work persistently for (1) neutral edits and (2) courtesy towards others -- what can we not accomplish? (^_^) --Ed

I would very much like to work with you to resolve these issues and improve Wikipedia. As a matter of fact here's a call to action! OneVoice 15:44, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An invitation

I would like to formally invite you to join others at Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Arab-Israeli_conflict to work with us toward resolving issues that have arisen and resulted in edit wars here at Wikipedia. Also, I would like to formally request that you agree, along with the rest of us, to refrain from editting each of the articles that are listed as currently under protection or subject to edit wars on that page till the issues regarding that particular article have been resolved and we have removed that article from the currently under protection or subject to edit wars list. OneVoice 15:44, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's asking quite a lot. Before I say yes or no to the "refrain form editing" part, we better talk it over. See you on the project page. --Uncle Ed 16:13, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is asking quite a lot, and I may have phrased it poorly. The idea is that we agree to discuss and resolve issues rather than engage in edit wars and that edit wars are set aside during the discussion. OneVoice 18:20, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're killing me!

Ed, seeing you have just put up a page on a book called "Power Kills", I thought you might like this quote from Kenneth Tynan, a distressingly influential theatre critic in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s:

"All power is delightful. And absolute power is absolutely delightful".

seglea 17:37, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you. - Hephæstos|§ 20:26, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it's for what I think, you're welcome. --Ed

I unblocked because it was the view of four in IRC that your apparently unilateral action was inappropriate. If you believe that it is appropriate as an emergency measure, please at least use a straw poll of the sort which was used with 168 yesterday to demonstrate that there is support for it and little or no opposition. Jamesday 20:39, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think Ed's action was completely in line with Jimbo's implied wishes on wikien-l. - Hephæstos|§ 20:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, James is right of course -- on procedural grounds. Very un-Entish of me... It really should go to the committee, don't know what got into me, etc. --Uncle Ed 20:47, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Particularly regrettable when I agree that this block is a good idea, at least on a per incident basis. That I was acting against my own view that the ban should be there (after at least some process) is one reason why I volunteered to do the unblocking. Jamesday 21:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I also unblocked. I guess I'm taking some of the passion and what seems (for me) to be piety and nationalism of some of the US contributors very personally, and feel the need to defend anyone who stands up against them. I guess I feel threatened.

We don't have anything like the US right here. I keep going through phases where I think that the project will never work, that people edit on political/international issues due to gut feelings rather than on what historians/political scientists accept as a reasonable analysis. I know _everyone_ has POV, and I have a left-liberal European one. I am very protective of the East Germany articles for example, I've done a lot of studying on the topic. When someone just wishes to add "evil totalitarian" or something to the article I dispair. At least say "post totalitarian" or something. There is really no consensus on how to analyse those states. Apologies for the rant, I will get back to adding pretty pictures of London ;) Secretlondon 22:03, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar

Ed, you do such good work around here. In recognition for that, I award you the barnstar →Raul654 21:22, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

LOL, if this is for giving Wik a 12-minute time-out, you're overdoing it! But thanks!! --Ed

No, actually, I just noticed you didn't have one, and you do such good work around here. →Raul654 21:30, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. *blushes modestly*

Congrats on the barnstar. You deserve it for the effort you put into disputes that most people would rather run a mile from! Angela . 23:56, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Please don't ask to be de-opped again. Your decisions are almost always right, so keep the barnstar with pride ;-) -- Baldhur 07:22, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I hereby award you the new, improved barnstar. silsor 04:53, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

can you talk to Viajero. He and Zero0000 have decided that they are arbiters fo r what news sources are valid. See User Talk:Stevertigo Viajero is reverting a news item in Current Events. I am reinstating it. Thanks.OneVoice 16:23, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ed, we need to resolve this INN is the only news organization I know of that reports on the conflict minute-by-minute. It also picks up stories in advance of other sources by a day or more. It also tracks events that are not reported elsewhere such as shooting attacks, handgrenade attacks, rock throwing events etc. I wish to keep bringing news from INN to Wikipedia. OneVoice 16:28, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ed, its tens on millions of dollars...lets not minimize. An amputation is also a cut, but it is certainly not a paper cut. The scale of diversion of funds matters....better yet would be something like $74million out of $200million....I dont have good numbers so I cant be that specific. OneVoice 16:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Relax, will you? This is an encyclopedia, not CNN. I e-mailed Viajero privately and he and I settled on Haaretz as a source for the same story.

If one contributor thinks a particular news source is unreliable, a quick Google search will often find another more mainstream source that says the same thing. --Ed

de-sysop

Please do not de-sysop yourself. If you need a break, just take one. But don't step out of your capacity as a sysop. You are reasonable and conscientious. Your values are in the right place. Wikipedia would suffer greatly without you as a role model. Consider especially that last sentence. Kingturtle 02:10, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

History of Palestine

UncleEd, could I ask you to take a look at the statement by Benny Morris that User:Zero0000 insists upon deleting from this page. OneVoice 23:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page editted, Benny Morris's statements deleted by Viajero. Page protected by Viajero OneVoice 23:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Huge Backlog

I took a 3-day break from Wikipedia, and what do I find when I get back? Bans and un-bans and invasions of privacy and basically all hell breaking loose.

Well, it will probably take me the rest of this week just to get caught up on the 120 e-mails on Wikien-l and then there's all the committee work and other requests. *sigh* I'd rather write about movies and books. --Uncle Ed 14:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Amen to that. Sorry about my remarks on Wikien-l: you're absolutely right that we need to cut out the unilateral bans. Frankly, I was just horrified at how silsor had been treated and I felt those who had seen Plautus's email really didn't know what they were dealing with. But I shouldn't have acted as though we ought to keep things as they are. Hopefully it'll all settle down again soon. Thanks for your cheerful demeanor and continued presence here: we need you around. Jwrosenzweig 21:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus Satire unblock

Ed,

I was alerted to your unblock of Plautus Satire by Finlay McWalter. I don't read the mailing list, but I think I should start. Regardless, I know you unblocked User:Plautus satire, and I can see your reasons for it. But please consider - he had already been blocked twice (by other admins, despite his claims otherwise) for trolling and vandalizing talk pages. He was warned to stop harassing other users (If Silsor's fanmail page doesn't convince you, I don't know what will). Of his many edits, only about 4-8 were valid improvements to articles. I took every opportunity to let him know his behavior was unacceptable (see user talk:Plautus satire, or talk:Albert Einstien, et al), but that he I would "wipe the slate clean" if he would stop committing bannable offenses (as mentioned above, reverting talk pages and presenting inflammatory comments as facts). He turned me down cold every time.

I finally did block him after he reverted another user's comment on a the blackhole talk page. That user had quoted him, and Plautus felt that quoting him gave him license to remove the comment becaues "it was his". After I blocked him, I had 4 or 5 seperate people thanked me on my talk page. I even asked mav before-hand, but he pasesd the buck saying he was just an ordinary admin. So I don't think my banning him was unilateral, or unjustified. →Raul654 00:26, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I was wondering how you would compare my and others' blockings of Plautus Satire to your blocking of Wik.

20:25, 12 Feb 2004 Ed Poor blocked "Wik" (Edit wars)

19:43, 17 Feb 2004 Ed Poor unblocked "Plautus satire" (Not confirmed by Arbitration Committee)

Plautus Satire is by far the worst of the two. Imagine if he were as active as Wik? silsor 04:17, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Would you consider these questions [2] (now that you read on entire book on the topic ?

Socialism

I know you've weighed in heavily in the past on the Socialism article. I've done a lot of editing on it in the last month or so. Please take a look. I believe it is a much better article now. I'd be interested in your opinion. -- Jmabel 09:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)