User talk:Ed Poor/requests

Appeal for assistance
Dear EdPoor, I would like to call your attention to the article on Robert J Lifton who is frequently quoted by member of anti-cult movements of all sorts. Lifton is a very well-known psychiatrist in countercult circles and recently he softened his theories and toned down his speeches, while adding other dimentions to his search of 'roots of the evil' (to which activity he was inspired by some rabbi, according to his interview). The fact is that while Lifton is som much important as legitimate scholar with generally OK renome, the bias manifests in increasing this level of legitimacy. Then he is being quoted as big authority on other pages, most notably concerning: roots of (Arab) terrorism, anti-semitism, cults (including 'Christian) et cetera. Please kindly review the page and add some balance, thank you very much.

WP:RFM
I've just checked WP:MC and a lot of mediators seem to be inactive now (more are listed as inactive than as active.) Do you have some time to take on some of the new requests at RFM? Also, is the mediator mailing list mod still moderating the mailing list or is that person also inactive? - Mgm|(talk) 18:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm available. But if there's a mediator mailing list, I'm unaware of it. How about making me the list moderator? I used to moderate (or "administer") the English Wikipedia mailing list. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay now: I'm back on the mailing list; you (1) are on the committee now and (2) are the chairmen pro tem; and I have agreed to be vice chairman (serving in your absence).

(I'm thinking of buying The Complete Idiot's Guide to Getting Along with Difficult People.)

Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs
Dear Ed Poor, at the moment there is a poll taking place on the Macedonian Slavs talk page to which you could make a significant contribution. Thank you in advance for your participation. Ivica83 13:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I posted a long comment about NPOV. I'm not sure I'd like to be in the poll.

Terri Schiavo mediation
(Looks above) Um, I can see you're busy. However, if you can spare the energy, the Terri Schiavo & Talk:Terri Schiavo pages have ramped up again following the release of the autopsy report. I'd love you hear your thoughts on the state of things. If you're committed, would you suggest anyone else to help us sort things out? Thanks for the effort.--ghost 14:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "I've been asked by ghost to step in as Mediator. How do you feel about that? And where (if anywhere) shall we discuss all this?"


 *  -- Uncle Ed , I finally offered some feedback at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation (I made up for being a little late to jump in, but I think I did my part, finally! ) Now, I hope to chill out and let me feedback soak in to the others' brains. What do you think of my feedback on the mediation page here? Thx, -- G ordon W atts D ot C om 13:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. I feel fine about it. Probably on Talk:Terri Schiavo but I'm not attached. FuelWagon 23:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "I'm definitely the worst, most unqualified person for this job, but since no one else has volunteered you may as well give it a go. What have you got to lose?" Dude, you gotta cut this kind of talk out. No one's said that about you that I've seen, and if it was meant even in jest, it still comes across as at least half-serious. FuelWagon 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Refactored. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm an old hand at mediation, but I don't know the latest formats and conventions. How about a subpage like Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation? It would be limited to those agreeing to Mediation, of course, which so far is just YOU! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree to Mediation as well. Ann Heneghan 17:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Uncle Ed, I was late, but I voted to support your mediation help.


 * At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Terri_Schiavo_and_the_Talk:Terri_Schiavo_pages which is saved in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&diff=0&oldid=15489265 I also voted in favor of your help.-- G ordon W atts D ot C om 10:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess I better list all the "agree-ers" at RFM. At last count, there are 3 of you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Several others have agreed elsewhere, including Duckecho @ RFM. And, of course, your's truly...--ghost 17:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Do me a favor, will you, Casper? List all the names at RFM and at the TS talk subpage? I'm swamped doing other stuff, but I'll take a look this P.M. (US East Coast time). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Np. Forgive me if I miss anyone.--ghost 19:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL, ghosts have no legal rights, but you've established your credentials substantially enough. Let the healing begin. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Being manuvered into doing this... hurt. It goes against how I think things should be. So I do the following with regret that we apear to have no other options:
 * I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. I ask that you examine this.--ghost 20:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you are unwilling to participate in mediation with Dave? No does not.  I will participate.  But for what purpose?


 * But he has proven, thru actions, that his participation with us is disingenuous. He has established a pattern of abusing the article, the Talk: page, editors and mediation participants.  And for no purpose that I can see, other than attracting attention to himself.  The is the most ghoulish form of bullying I've seen in years.  This is not the type of abuse that FuelWagon borders on with using foul language.  This is a systemic, pathological subversion of the medium (Wikipedia) for the no better reason Dave's own aggrandizment.  He needs to go.  Permanently.--ghost 20:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I just wanted to clarify something. I didn't vote for mediation because I wasn't made aware of the vote. However, as I'm (on the whole) more concerned with copyeditry and so on (I find it very zen ... don't ask me why), I don't really feel a need to involve myself in the mediation (and will just observe, as I was 'uninvited'). I do feel it's needed, although I have little faith in it working in this case, as one of the principles of successful mediation is the voluntary acquiescence of both parties to the ground rules of the mediator, and remaining civil ... and I'm unfortunately waiting NCDave flipping and accusing everyone, including your good self, of wanting to kill Terri Schiavo from the start. The best of luck. Proto t c 30 June 2005 13:02 (UTC)

please have a look (I think this is pretty urgent.)
Ed, hi,

A relatively new contributor, Zen-master, has taken an interest in the article on Race_and_intelligence and has decided to attack Rikurzhen, calling him a racist and a Nazi. I've tried to reason with him regarding the main point of contention, but he ignores anything that anybody says to him and comes back with a personal attack. His latest was, essentially, "Only a Nazi would say what you just said." He seems to be a responsible contributor on other articles, but he insists on fulminating on the discussion page. His behavior has gone beyond the point where I feel it appropriate to dignify his theoretical challenges because he never speaks to the question, just calls names. Could you please have a look? I almost started a "request for comment," but that seemed too extreme. Rikurzhen is one of the most level-headed and non-ideological contributors to Wikipedia that I know of, and it is entirely an outrage for him to be called a racist and a Nazi simply because he has been involved in straightening out an article -- one that a year ago was such a mess that I just threw up my hands at it. Thanks. P0M 02:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I notified the arbcom. Please continue to try to work this out - or just ignore the man. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to mediate, but it seems that I am perceived as a racist, Nazi, and/or Neo-Nazi. P0M 16:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought we were getting somewhere for a while today. It's really strange. Sorry I kept copying his sentence with the N word in it but I wanted to leave him no out so I gave him his own sentence back. It didn't matter because he's got some kind of block on saying what "this issue" is. I think I get his point, but he won't leave it dormant long enough to see what the rest of us are trying to say to him.

Do you see what I'm talking about when I say that "Race and Intelligence (Pro and Con)" wouldn't seem so bad (I almost voted for deletion myself) if it were in a series with "Nutrition and Intelligence," "Prenatal Mozart and Intelligence," etc., etc., i.e., a consideration of all the factors that have been hypothesized to have an effect on intelligence. Only considering one factor, especially when the evidence presented indicated that it is a real factor, does give the appearance of supporting a particular ideological hobby-horse. I think that is Z's real objection, but he has his defenses up. He's starting to remind me of a student in a freshman seminar I taught last fall. He's talented, but the process of argumentation is new to him. P0M 05:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's requests
I appreciate the humor. Any chance of the mediation commitee stepping up to the plate, or will we have to wait for it to be overhauled? Sam Spade 15:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this on RFM? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, see WP:RfM and the "really need mediator" thread. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Seen it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cool, tnx. Sam Spade 17:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * On another note, is there any chance you, or a similarly respectable, non-partisan editor might step into the hornets nest of Talk:Anarchism? It seems to be a perpetual political melee. If article mediation isn't yet part of the mediation process, it really should be! Cheers, Sam Spade 17:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * ROTFL, how many simultaneous mediations do you think I can handle? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * No clue, nor do I have any idea how many you have... (you are the back-up chairman, so as far as I know you might not take cases?) Maybe there should be a sign up board, so disputants can know which mediators are available. Sam Spade 19:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Active Mediators are supposed to sign in here. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Block
Thank you, Ed. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please attend my funeral. I will get raked over the coals for this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to undo if you're having second thoughts and see WP:AN/I for more details. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * No second thoughts at all. I trust you completely. But when I wake up tomorrow, I might not be an admin any more. Hmm, that might be good, actually (see Take this job and shove it). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Enforcing no name-calling
Hi Ed, I thought I'd tell you that I don't think zen master should be given free reign to continue calling Rikurzen a nazi even after your warnings (see the race and intelligence talk page; Rikurzen has done model work on a complex article and doesn't deserve to be harassed.Best, Nectarflowed T 05:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of friends
Does anyone seriously think I only have two friends at Wikipedia? I didn't list them all. ..

LOL! Or maybe you went for quality instead of quantity. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:16, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
Ed, hi, Thanks for getting involved. I have taken your suggestion that each involved person try to state what concerns are central to them on the talk page, at least that is how I've rather liberally interpreted it.

I agree with others that the main problem is that Zen-master is jamming up the works. Rikurzhen was right, I think, in suggesting that we all just ignore him since he ignores our best attempts to reason with him and goes back to his central theme. We've each said to him in a number of ways that the problem is out there already. People assert that there is a connection between [race] (hate that word) and [intelligence] (also getting to dislike that one). That fact won't go away. The only way that the assertion can ever go away is if people clobber it with scientific research. The only way Zen-master can achieve the result he wants is exactly what he is fighting against.

I wrote to you because Zen-master was making a personal attack. I asked him to verify that he was saying what I thought he was saying, and he verified it. So telling him not to make personal attacks was the right thing to do. Something happened after I went to bed at 4 a.m. I don't know what it was. I had made one more attempt to get Zen-master to focus in on something so that I could try to educe the source of his problem and let him see where he really needs to go. He is fighting the only kind of people who can attack the problem he is concerned with. But it's hard to get anywhere with him because he will not answer points put to him responsively. He didn't respond to my simple question, maybe because of your intervention, who knows.

Zen-master is saying, when you boil it all down: Do not discuss that question! Well, we just had a vote for deletion a week or two ago and the results were something like 40:1 to keep the article. So if we are going to keep the article we need to get past the diatribes. One way is to ignore them (which none of us seems to have the self-control to do, or maybe we have too much hope). One way is to try to educate him. But every time somebody says something constructive, every time somebody gives him the key, he does not seem to even look at it in the privacy of his own mind. He goes off to the side with an emotional response. It is like somebody who is suffering angina because he smokes. The doctor tries to tell him about nicotine, but for the angina patient smoking is his religion and you can't discuss that. In fact you can't even approach the problem indirectly because the patient is canny enough to see where you are heading and shuts you off right away. So what are you going to do? That part of the educational process may be something that we will never accomplish. I try to explain things to people -- even when other people wish I would stop taking up bandwidth. But sometimes it just doesn't work.

If we teach the other lesson, that you cannot call somebody a Nazi or some other inflamatory thing, then maybe that is all we can hope to do. That and keep the "agenda" from interfering with the article and with Wikipedia. Thanks again for your help. P0M 16:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Please use strikeout to mark up any personal remarks that get under your skin. I'll review the talk page next chance I get. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Help requested in submiting a WIKI quote on a protected page
Ed, here's the email i sent one admin; if he's too busy, I wonder if you could look into it:

Dear Aphaia:

I posted a note on your page the other day, but you must have overlooked it:

http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aphaia&diff=68109&oldid=67502

Anyhow, I am writing about the http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion page:

Since the Wikiquote page on Abortion is protected, I would seek your help in adding this quote -if you see fit - to the wiki quotes on abortion:

The Lord calls the prophet to service

"Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations'." (Holy Bible, Jeremiah 1:4-5; New King James Version Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.)

Thank you. PS: Please email me at Gww1210@aol.com to let me know your decision. I don't have a page in wiki quote, but I do have one in en.wikipedia ... Thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you,

Gordon Watts


 * Now that we've gotten to know each other, I'd like to help you but I'm not an admin at WikiQuotes. Try one of these people. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi
Hi Ed. I must start by apologising to you for my comments on the mailing list a couple of days ago. I was cross, and out of order. As you are certainly very talented in creating NPOV, could you have a look at that article. There has been a large POV war between two users, which I temporarily halted using &#123;&#123;twoversions&#125;&#125;. The war has now restarted, and I would really appreciate it if you were able to have a look at the dispute. Both sides are putting in POV, and one may be a copyvio. I don't feel equipped to sort out the dispute myself – perhaps you can? Cheers, smoddy 19:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this a request for Mediation, or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not as such, no, because I am not an involved party. I am just wondering what you would advise me to do, as I am not sure myself.  Cheers, smoddy 19:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, you mean I can just be an ordinary editor for a moment? Wow! I'll be right there.... -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fraid I wasn't much help. Result: NPOV tag added, page locked. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed, [...]That page has a long history, before the disputes started. The disputes started when one (or more, if the anonymous IP's were not the same person) started to raid that article (and at the same time another article about that organization) and they are clearly POV. [...] The person (or persons) changing that article are clearly members of that organization. 80.58.43.107 (personal attacks removed by Nectarflowed)


 * Hmm, thanks for trying. That tirade is, well, unsurprising I guess.  Cheers, smoddy 22:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Ed, [...] You locked a page and you didn't put a page lock message in the article. [...] You went to Maryam Rajavi page, and didn't take one quick look at when the disputes started and why and who is who? --195.29.186.146 (personal attacks removed by Nectarflowed)

Dear Ed, Thanks for being on the lookout for the Maryam Rajavi article. I m very sorry that Iranian regime tries to misuse the wikipedia tool to bad-mouth people and present its ideology as facts, but I apreciate that you defend the image of Wikipedia despite the constant presonal abuse by Iranian regime's supporters. The regime's supporters are very abusive as you can see in their version of the article. --RezaKia 08:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bluxo
Refactored: Bluxo keeps posting a silly picture (see ). It was not a newbie experiment; Derek warned him.


 * I still don't see how I could discern any of this, simply by looking at his contribs. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * He replied and explained for you very clearly how you could have figured it out, but you edited out his reply. It is truly amazing that you are an admin, let alone a bureaucrat!!  You make mistakes left and right and people have to constantly point them out to you, but because you are a beureaucrat, they say it mildly or (presumably) in many cases they don't even bother to say anything.  Please think about this.  If you are so incompetent, just stay out of stuff.


 * I'm amazed myself, and I doubt I could win an admin election if I had to run again now. And I am grateful to those who point out my mistakes mildly. Perhaps I can do better. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Blocks and Nonsense

 * 1) 1 - I was reverting vandalism by Fuzheado and his goons.


 * 1) 2 - I'd love to help you out but Fuzheado is running around overzealously blocking any good-faith editor who touches that page claiming "open proxy." He's a menace.

-ElKabong
 * 1) 3 - I would have emailed you but you don't list an email so that's not an option.

Blocked "Forever"
You know, it's REAL hard to make any good-faith edits when you have asshole admins like Fuzheado running around permablocking people.

-ElKabong


 * I'm a pretty nice guy, and you seem to have cooled down a bit. Tell me what you're up to, and maybe I can help. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:43, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

=Recent requests=

That water over there
Hello! I noticed your interest in the Sea of Japan/East Sea question. Your input would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names. -- Visviva 16:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi
Dear Ed, I wanted to thank you for having prevented the regime from writing abusive content on the Maryam_Rajavi page. From the moment you unlocked the page though the regime restarted vandalising article many times. At the end he wrote a note saying that the vandalism was done by the "members" of the Mojahedin. Obviously the Mojahedin would not bad-mouth themselves. It is obvious it was the regime because the note they wrote in the edit section at the end was only minutes after their vandalism.

I have added new information to the page and even provided photos to make the case. If you wouldn't mind, please take a look at the Talk page of the Talk:Mojahedin-e-Khalq where I answered some of the regime's lies and I didn't want to repeat it again in the Maryam_Rajavi talk page.

Since the regime is being abusive, I wanted to ask you to review the page and all its past versions as an administrator to help prevent the regime from abusing Wikipedia. (I don't know whether it is possible to block the regime's IP or the page again - you know Wikipedia guidelines better than I do).

Please take a look, if you wouldn't mind. I would appreciate that.--RezaKia 18:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mojahedin-e Khalq
Dear Ed, Since you followed the page about Maryam Rajavi, I wanted you to take the trouble to look at the Mojahedin-e-Khalq page as well. It has been blocked for nearly a month though it is riddled with POV. I have made quite a sound argument on its Talk page but the administrator RefDoc has so far refused to open it. Thanx! --RezaKia 28 June 2005 07:48 (UTC)

R&I my reply and 1 concern
Dear Ed, I have responded to your warning on my talk page. I thought that was what I have been doing. It certainly was my conscious intent to do as you suggest. My only addition was to ask, "Is that really what you meant to say?" (Personally, I don't mind being called anything. A couple years in the public schools on an "inner city" numbs the emotions.) I think Rikurzhen may be permanently leaving. I hope not. "I will not be available for further..." sounds ominous to me. P0M 28 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)


 * Patrick, that was not a warning. You are far too mature to require warnings. That was a heads-up about a possible change in policy. I don't make policy, and I forget what page I saw the discussion on.


 * The only change would be that you and I, when "called something", will be obliged to avoid mentioning the possibility of a block / ban. (I guess the other guys think it would be abused, otherwise; I dunno.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 17:36 (UTC)

your talk page
I have a bad habit of not throwing anything away. Similarly, I watch almost every page I have edited - especially User Talk pages. 1502 non-talk pages, probably a hundred or two User pages. Guettarda 28 June 2005 19:54 (UTC)

Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?
It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.

- Eric 29 June 2005 01:44 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi & Mojahedin-e Khalq
Dear Ed, Thanks for having acted in a fair and impartial manner with regards to Maryam_Rajavi & Mojahedin-e-Khalq pages which the Iranian regime was constantly misusing by reverting facts into lies. I appreciate your efforts and I know that the regime used bad language against you to try to prevent you from acting fair.

With Best Wishes, --RezaKia 29 June 2005 22:41 (UTC)

coolmerge
Hi there! I do like this layout (I didn't actually create it though). There's currently some discussion at the template's talk page (and WP:TS) about what templates should look like, I'd encourage you to join. It's probably better to have one template per function though, but the CoffeeRoll standard was a huge improvement over the variety of styles of dispute templates. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; June 30, 2005 13:47 (UTC)


 * Better an optional variant than an edit war. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 14:38 (UTC)

Occupations of Palestine
Hi. Now that Sunday's over :), it would be great to continue the discussion on Talk:Occupations of Palestine... - Mustafaa 1 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)


 * Huh? You talking to me? What happened on Sunday? -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 02:21 (UTC)


 * Oh. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 11:17 (UTC)

Ya
Hey. My cunning plan revealed! - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

Removed debris from RfM -- thanks for the reminder
I should have taken this down a while ago, my apologies. Peace. BrandonYusufToropov 1 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)


 * None needed, you can return the favor: I'm sure I have some debris lying around here, too. Just lemme know where it is, and I'll sweep it up. Thanks. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Help!
Lost the link for the RfA, which I would also like to remove. Can you pass it along when you get the chance? Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 1 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)


 * If you mean requests for arbitration, I think it was already removed. I will check there. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 16:34 (UTC)

Watchlist troubles
Ed, my watchlist seems buggy. I know of several articles that have been updated and I'm not seeing them reflect on my watchlist. Any rumors?--ghost 1 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
 * Your User:Talk is one that I don't see an update on the the last 3 days.--ghost 1 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)


 * Carbonite told the mailing list that this has been reported as a bug . -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 16:45 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks.  It's good to know you're only slightly crazy....--ghost 1 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

R&I discussions
Dear Ed,

Thank you for getting involved on Race and intelligence. I have apologized unreservedly to User:zen-master on his Talk page; your suggestion, I think, is productive.

I (obviously) struggle with how to contend with ZM. He appears free to call me and others racists or associate us with racists; this is extremely upsetting to me, as I have no means to respond (because the accusation alone serves his purpose). I strive to answer his assertions in a content-rich way, but as P0M has observed he does not really internalize the content, and I feel as though I'm in some sort of marathon...he can keep posting the same claims over and over, and I (we, actually) must keep responding in new ways in an attempt to get through. My lapses in conduct are entirely due to exhaustion. Since ZM's arrival, the discussion pages have virtually overflowed with low-quality rehashes of the same debates with minimal progress on the article, and I see no end in sight. (The only thing worse would be to move all the argumentation to the article itself, which I fear will create an epic edit war; I much prefer the consensus-building approach on the Talk page.)

Your help has been appreciated. Regarding content, it's my personal wish that you would more rigorously demand citations, as much of the chaff in the discussion is simply raw argumentation, not the encyclopedic assembly of existing material. You might consider adopting a slightly more serious tone when providing content suggestions; the jokes obscure rather than enhance your points. I mean this all with the utmost respect. Again, thanks for your assistance. --DAD 1 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

Dear Ed,

I, too, apologized. It was sometime around 9 a.m., and I thought that my edit had been saved. I just came back (it's now about 2:30) and discovered there was never anything saved. I just reposted. I am frustrated by the process of discussions, and having ZM question my motives does not help. I tried to create a paragraph that put in the strongest terms everything that I think can be said to properly contextualize the article. I cannot imagine anything else I might do to make this a better article. Thanks for correcting my behavior. P0M 1 July 2005 18:47 (UTC) P.S. I suppose that other have noticed that now when you hit "Save page" the software will actually do a "Show preview." I've noticed this behavior several times lately.

So we're ready to unlock the talk page, then? -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 19:10 (UTC)


 * Not quite; your conditions have not yet been fulfilled. Hopefully soon.  --DAD 1 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)


 * Ed, I'm very sorry, but I feel somewhat betrayed. You asked that everyone unconditionally apologize, and locked Talk:Race and intelligence.  Two of us did exactly what you asked.  One of us (ZM) did not, yet you unlocked the Talk page anyway, allowing ZM to immediately ask for a response to his previous post that is loaded with suppositions about people's motivations and other attacks.  I am upset.  Please help me understand how to proceed.  --DAD 1 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)


 * 1) I didn't say everyone.
 * 2) I did say unconditional.
 * 3) Two contributors made unconditional apologies.
 * 4) ZM is a human being, not a puppet. I can't make stop saying he finds the situation "suspicious".
 * No, but you can hold him to the same standards you hold us with respect to personal attacks. That's what I'm asking for.  --DAD 1 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

Proceed by doing what I do:
 * Ignore any remarks which upset you, and focus on the most productive part of ZM's suggestions; or,
 * Raise a specific objection, like, "Please don't call me a racist" or
 * Quote the remark you object to, here on my talk page, and stay off Talk:Race and intelligence.

I can promise you one thing: if you follow my directions, and keep following them, you will not be a loser. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 21:46 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that; my conduct will speak for itself.
 * Regarding your page-lock, you didn't say "everyone" (my error). You said, "apologize (unconditionally!) to each other".  No reciprocation, in either case, occurred, yet the lock was lifted.  As it's too late now, I only want to suggest that extreme care be used in formulating and executing this kind of ban in the future.  This one left a bad taste.  I'll continue in good faith, as I don't believe any malice was intended.  --DAD 1 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

As a witness to this, I'd like to put in my concern that saying a user has crossed the line and is not being a level-headed editor is not the same as disrupting an article for 2 and 1/2 weeks and continually repeating accusations of Nazism. It's a nice idea to apply a censure evenly across two opposing sides, but one of the sides has been acting in good faith, and the other has, yes, been acting in bad faith, as evidenced, for example, by his making 5 reversions in one day, even after being warned. Note that the bad faith editor still hasn't apologized. Patrick and Drummond should have been applauded for having the patience to deal with said editor for so long.--Nectarflowed T 3 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)

Bugs in new mediawiki?
Is it just me, or eveyrone elses watchlists stopped updating since this morning? I don't see any articles updated after 5 am central time, I manually diffed some and found changes after that. I tried logging out and using a different machine, with same result. So, is it a bug in new media wiki??? --Ragib 1 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)


 * Yes. Carbonite told the mailing list that this has been reported as a bug . -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 19:19 (UTC)


 * haha, I am cooler than you, *my* last shown update was 5:24am, aha! Sherurcij July 1, 2005 19:41 (UTC)

Naming conflict
Hi Ed,

I've expanded Naming conflict - see what you think! -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, really good, Chris. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 2, 2005 00:14 (UTC)

Invitations
On a seperate plane entirely, since you annoint yourself as an NPOV champion, I'd appreciate a critique on NPOV/content on Treaty of Shimonoseki, with proper reference (deference? ) to the talk page. I don't think it's properly polished, but I'm not foolish enough to nominate myself for that job. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 05:07
 * Hi! I enjoy many of your comments on Vfd pages, but that seems like a lifetime ago.
 * I noted the above link and took a peek, and that may settle one issue below...
 * You are formally invited to try to do something with Mr Tan, in particular, and the other juveniles flexing their hormones on Talk:Tsushima Islands. After a day or so reading my efforts to reason with the boy User Talk:Mr Tan, perhaps in your copious spare time you could take a look at Fire Retardant which has an idea or two on flamewar suppression&mdash; a matter I've become all too familar with trying to mediate in the one referenced.
 * If you can get somewhere with him, when Mel, and SlimVirgin and JMBell and I have all failed to do so, I'll send you a nice present.
 * After that miracle, I'd appreciate an explaination (email prefered) as to why this sort of unruliness (and worst, lack of output&mdash; see second link halfway down on versions and growth) is allowed to continue in an era when Wiki is rapidly becoming known worldwide. Are you folks in the old guard failing to adapt? You've got to be seeing expotential use (hits) growth with all the buzz in media of everykind. Not to mention just from google. Overworking enthusiastic and dedicated Admins like Mel Etitis isn't going to do you much good if 4 of 5 get up and leave in disgust. Just trying to help User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)