User talk:Ed Poor

Ed, I just posted a question you might want to field on the talk page of Clouds of Witnesses. Just curious and thought you might know the answer,

Wesley

"Is the generation of dozens of articles the best way to present this data?"

That depends on whether or not the generated articles have a lot of quality. You are a little late though, as I have finished almost all of the 3,000+ counties. The only way to get all this data in any reasonable amount of time into the articles is to automate it. There is a positive side to it too: the formats stay consistent. The articles generated *are* useful. They are obviously not complete articles, yet they do have useful data. But of course I am only creating the start of most of these articles. It is up to others (including myself) to enhance them. This is already happening. FYI, I've gotten a lot of positive feedback on the entry of these articles. As always, if you don't like something, feel free to change it. Oh, and these articles beat stubs by a mile. -- Ram-Man

They are stubs, they're just stubs with more statistics. --Brion

Incorrectly considered as a vandal

128.193.88.41 has made some useful edits to Homosexuality and Talk:metrication. Let's lighten up on 128 -- he just seems to be yanking Tarquin's chain. If we let him alone, he'll probably get tired of it. And as it says above, please do not label isolated instances of text deletions, replacements or odd additions as VANDALISM unless they are overtly lewd or offensive. --Ed Poor

Fair enough. Like I said to him/her below, please register & stop mucking around. For the record, don't yank tarquin's chain. -- Tarquin

Anonymous user from dynamic IP 128.xxx.xxx.xxx has refused several attempts to move rational discussion of his entries from the Talk:Wikipedic page to the meta pages. He is completely rational.
- 128.193.88.xxx is also "OsmosisTwo" person who attempted to resist the cabal the other night. baffling, not malicious. -- Tarquin 15:48 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)
- 128.193.88.xxx, please register a user name so you have user page where can talk to you about how you can go about helping this project. please stop editing my words (above). it's rude. -- Tarquin
- I will not register a user name.
- It's your choice, and regular contributors have chosen stay unregistered before. It does make it easier for everyone if people have names instead of numbers. -- Tarquin
It is too laborious to create dozens of usernames. Why bother when I can let dynamic IP mask me behind 128.X.X.X, as well as switch to my other ISP/University/Company accounts when I want to be somethign besides 128?

No one has to register a user name. I'm at the opposite extreme from you, and I use my real name (instead of something like BigMetalGuy -- my gaming handle). Each to his own. --Ed

Hi Ed, thanks for the message on my talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not going to touch global warming with a ten-foot pole (unless it needs copyediting) -- I've never studied atmospheric physics in the necessary depth (options clashes and that) so I don't want to blunder in. --Bth

Which version of anarchism did you revert to? --Ed Poor (on my talk page)

I reverted to the same version Graft did; that is, I reverted to Graft's reversion. And Ed, Lir, heads up, if there isn't any further discussion in the Anarchism talk page, I'm going to revert it again then try to harvest the intermediary revisions for content. By the way, Ed, the document you keep on linking to, the anarchist FAQ is already linked from the libertarian socialism page. (First link; different URL; same document.) DanKeshet

Thanks, Dan. Harvesting the intermediary revisions for content was what I had in mind, too. "Harvesting" is a Christian concept that I've loved since I first understood the metaphor in my teens: "We plow the field and scatter the good seed on the land. But it is fed and watered by God's almighty hand." (Godspell) Well, I gotta go meet an anarchist comrade of mine, so try not to kill each other overnight, okay? --Ed Poor

By the way, saying "Harvesting" is a Christian concept seems a bit weird to me. I'd say "harvesting predates christianity, as do morals. (This isn't any kind of attack, just a note, perhaps to get you to think.) -- Sam

chuckle* I think you just jump-started my brain, Sam. Keep it up :-) --Ed

I am NOT eliminating other forms of anarchism. HAVE YOU READ THE DAMN THING? I added forms of anarchism. There is no reason why I can't change where it says libertarian socialism to anarchism. It is anarchism that is being discussed on that page. If libertarian socialism is to be discussed than how is it different than anarchism? The old version said they were the same. They are not. HAVE YOU READ THE REVISED VERSION?

I think the disclaimer is temporary. The information is already incorporated. Obviously people are being very touchy abour wording here so hopefully they will take the time to read and think what is the difference between a totalitarian community and a communal community.

Well, you're right about wording. Many of us like to get the wording just so. But we try to be a good example of anarchy in action, a non-totalitarian community if you will. I hope you'll stick around, despite yesterday's friction. --Ed

Hello, 216.174.135.53. We would rather you didn't insert random comments into articles. Would you like to help us build this encyclopedia, or should we just restrict your access to this site? --Ed Poor

Hello also to 164.83.4.85. Want to help? Or should we block your access? --Ed

Yep, I read the whole of The Gulag Archipelago in horrified fascination at the accumulation of detail on the machinery of oppression. One of the great books of the 20th c. Too bad Solzhenitsyn was such a disappointment himself, great writer though. Ortolan88

Ed, PLEASE be careful when blocking IPs. You mistakenly blocked 200.165.239.234 who was reverting vandalism by 165.139.124.250. --mav

Back in business. Thanks all -- Yes, please let's not block the "good guys", shall we?

I'm mortified at my mistake. I thought I was blocking 165.139.124.250 -- I even recorded (what I thought was) the block in Vandalism In Progress. Where could I have gone wrong? Trying too hard to respond quickly, maybe? *sigh* Sorry, 200.165.239.234, and thanks for your help, patience and understanding. --Ed

Thanks for sticking up for me, Ed. I don't know how much of a celebrity I am - maybe more or less a "failed attempt at a celebrity" (as my friend Wil puts it.) But I am a huge human rights activist, and whether someone is Baptist, lesbian, African-American or otherwise, I strongly believe in the individual right to self-identify and be respected in that choice (whether we agree with it or not.) Imagine, I changed just three words and it became a half-hour long exchange! -EB-

It gets better as time passes. The art of "making a change that no one will revert" is not easily learned. As Cash Money said to Jack Campbell in The Family Man, "It'll come to you." :-) --Ed Poor

Ed, You are right -- I did not read what you wrote carefully enough and I apologize. Nevertheless, I do not think that DanKeshet or Graft or anyone else on the talkpage was characterizing the conflict as piddling, and although I would rather not take issue with anything you write, in this case I think you were unfairly mischaracterizing what other people were saying in a divisive, or at least patronizing, tone. But it was wrong of me to suggest that you were characterizing conflicts in India as piddling, and for that I am sorry. Slrubenstein

Moved satire from deleted page -- things were getting out of hand:

Talk:List of famous people who have pierced their private parts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Clearly we need to know all the men who've had a Prince Albert and all the women who have pierced their labia majora, labia minora or clitorises. Not to mention all and sundry who have pierced their nipples, male and female. The public has a right to know!

It's not funny anymore. I require the assistance of admins to stop this intentional disrespect of homosexuals, immediately. I am a positive contributor to this encyclopedia, and I'm gay. I don't like it. It's not even subtle. It's an in your face, intentionally offensive attempt to demean me and others like me.

Furthermore, if you feel the need to list famous people with body modifications, perhaps that list should appear under a body modifications or tattooing or piercing heading. "Famous people who have... include..." - EB-

Notice to 63.231.52.76

You can't keep deleting things that you don't agree with, 63.231.52.76

If you think criticism is unfair, please explain on the talk pages. There is a very friendly dialogue going on at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues with a professional copyeditor (Vicki), and two kind-hearted gentleman (RK and me) trying to create a worthwhile article. Won't you please join the discussion? --Ed Poor

Thank you, 128.193.88.224

Apparently, you read the "vandalism in progress" notice and decided to revert your graffiti. That's commendable. --Ed Poor 17:20 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

Hi Ed, as you may have seen, I've set up a new attempt for the Canadians page at List of famous Canadians/Temp, based on a "Top 10" concept. It was a proposal by Eclecticology and Tokerboy, I liked it, and DW appears to like it as well. There will be the necessary discussion on who's going to be in each top 10, but I have faith that it'll all work out nicely. Regards, Jeronimo

City project

I'd just like to get your thoughts on an issue if you don't mind. I am about to create a large number of articles and I'd like to work out the correct method. See the question at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Thanks! -- Ram-Man

If you're asking my advice, I would do either of the following:

Create and present your own naming scheme, and just boldly carry it out. Since you work 10 times harder than anyone else, we'll all have to follow you.
Wait and build consensus, by inviting Jeronimo, Mav and anyone else to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities page; discussing alternatives; and holding a vote -- as was done on the countries project that Jeronimo spearheaded.

You asked, right? --Ed Poor

Have you been noticing abnormalities with the server load because of all the page generation? Another user lifted up a concern but I have not noticed anything that is abnormal. Sure there are lags, but I get that every day even when there is little or no activity. -- Ram-Man

Ed - when you restore pages, please make sure the restores are complete. This 66 person reverted Christopher Columbus to a much earlier version and instead of reverting back to the most up to date one you copied over the deleted paragraph. Now there are a lot of copyedits lost that were done the the non-deleted text. --mav

I know, I was getting to those, too. But my own edits got lost due to edit conflict. I will take another look at the "pre-66" version. --Ed Poor

Opps! It was the 66 person not 63. --mav

Hi Ed. I changed back your modification of the main page because it sounded to me like the "within certain limits" restricted the "anyone". That particular sentence refered to the "who", not to the "what", and it seems appropriate to me as it is.--AN 21:56 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

Ed, please don't delete words from the mispelling page just because they are causing false positives. A better way of getting rid of false positives is to "comment them out". You can do this by changing the initial * symbol on a line into a : symbol. If you do this it means that it's easy to put them back if you want to rerun the check at some future time. I'll add this info to the instructions. -- Derek Ross 22:44 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

Ed. We've argued before. I don't agree with a lot of stuff and I like to think it's because I'm right and everybody else is wrong. This banning was because I tried to change FOREIGN names and places to their proper FOREIGN name/place. Why are certain people so opposed to it? How is it not Anglophobe racism?

It's extremely frustrating. Lir 23:00 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

Well, I'm right almost all the time, too. Which is why I find it extremely frustrating that hardly anyone else wants to join my church (the Unification Church) -- why, they won't even acknowledge that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah! Sure, we'll laugh about this in a few decades when they realize their mistake, but for now it can be awfully tiresome.

But that wasn't why you were banned. You need to be more cooperative. When you disagree, be sure to give a source, as in Some descendants of these tribesman accused Colombus of genocide (rather than Columbus was a genocidal maniac).

Also, you'll notice that I put the Spanish spelling as close as possible to the English version of Christopher Columbus's name -- in the first sentence of the article.

Finally, I fought to get you back in here -- please don't make a fool of me by stirring up more trouble. Take it slow. If someone disagrees with one of your edits, try to understand why. Discuss it on the article's talk page. Even let it alone and come back in a day; you might find that another person makes the very same change you wanted to make!

--Ed

Hey Ed, I definitely agree with you about Columbus being a springboard for other discussions. Obviously in any encyclopedia various articles will be cross-referenced. And I think this article in part helps us deal with some of the issues raised in the Genocide article. Since the COlumbus article is a very specific case, it is easier to go into particulars than in a general article. Still, he was a real person who did real things for real reasons, with real consequences, and the CC article has to spell those out... Slrubenstein

---

Ed, I deliberately moved the old discussion to the archive at Talk:Politics of Canada because I could no longer edit the page or even see the last few comments in the Edit window. Tokerboy 18:42 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Good idea. We'll probably fill up a few archives worth of talk, if today's "he's a racist - no, you are" pace is any indication. *sigh* I wish I could just tell one of the kids to stand in the corner... --Ed Poor

---

Ed, I have also been having trouble with Lir. The page Mimos Berhad is about my employer, a relatively small company in Malaysia. It is barely linked from Wikipedia, only from my own page. He edited some information, adding some errors, such as claiming the company's main aim is open source (it's not, I am head of half of open source, open source staff make up 23 out of 1000 employees). Also, he cut and pasted some information directly from http://www.mimos.my/company_his.htm , and introduced further inaccuracies, such as interpreting 'corporatized' as 'privatized'. It doesn't mean that. The company is still wholly owned by the Government, but now it's a corporation, perhaps that means something different in Malaysia to USA.

Congratulations, Ed! I've chosen you to receive the honor of being Tokerboy's Special Helper! I can't edit U.S. presidential election, 2000 because my browser cuts off the bottom in the edit window, so I'd delete the last little bit when I save. Would you mind changing (in the first paragraph)

The election was marked by the extraordinarily close vote in Florida, whose electoral votes determined the election.

to:

The election was extraordinarly close, and the results of the election were not known immediately because Florida's disputed votes swung the election.

Unless, of course, you think my revision doesn't address the concern. Tokerboy 19:08 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

Dan, I value your input. Please tell me more about what your "make sure you integrate" remark was about, re: Moscow theatre siege. --Ed Poor 17:36 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

I just meant that Moscow theatre siege and The House of Culture incident had two different articles, now one after the other on both pages. Where the article lives is irrelevant, but I just didn't want you to revert The House of Culture incident and lose one of the articles. That's it. :) DanKeshet 17:39 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

By the time I got to it, there was just a REDIRECT from Moscow theatre siege to House of Culture Incident. There is a possibility that I accidentally erased some information; or that whoever did the original redirect erased some. I don't see anything about "House of Culture" except in the Chechnya and Moscow theatre siege articles. Since I have possible made a mess of it (and other things you have pointed out), I will simply stop editing for a few hours. I do hope you will clean up after me, so I may be rid of my "absolute shame". --Ed Poor