User talk:Ed Poor

I guess the "consensus" is that people want me to stop being an admin here - and of course, not a Wikipedia:Bureaucrat either.

Okay, but what next? You've all decided to skip 2 steps in Wikipedia:dispute resolution and go straight to the arbcom. Fine. Cover up the problems, blame them on me, and try to force me out.

But this won't really fix anything. The wiki process does not scale well enough. People who do not accept the Main Goal of this website are poised to over-run it. When they find that they were able to force me out (or even just to make me step down), what will they do next?

I think it would be better to stick to our principles. If anyone has a problem with me, please talk with me about it. Give me a chance to see your points and find common ground with you. Don't cut off comment, skip mediation, and head straight for an up/down arbitration vote when we're so close.

...Unless the IRC meeting with RobChurch, Phroziac, et al., was just a trick.

I'm a very trusting guy. I thought we had an agreement to work things out via IRC dialogue. I spent a lot of evening time doing so. I got the impression that we were on the verge of completion. Well, I can mis-judge people and maybe this will give an advantage to those seeking my dis-association with this project.

All right, then. I won't resist. Demote or restrict me as you see fit. But let me make it easier for you in one respect. You don't have to worry that I'll quit unless if I'm not accorded certain powers. I'll stick around, even if assigned a diminished role, as I have promised to Anthere, Mav and many others.

Because I believe in this project, and in the wiki way. And I'm willing to adjust myself to comply with it. Uncle Ed 19:46, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

For better or worse, friend ed, youve got my support.Gavin the Chosen 19:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was going to respond to your comment about Lucky6.9, but you seem to have archived it. As for IRC, we were doing fine until someone who perhaps did not appreciate the seriousness of the conversion derailed it by taking half an hour to hold forth on "truth and love as a metaphor for Wikipedia policy." The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

While I concede it was a bit rash, I for one, and so many others do not join any consensus that the resolution should go any farther than putting things back the way they were - and continuing to hammer out an improved process for VfD. Those who value temperance and consistency so high that it stiffles any hope of progress do not have a place in a changing world - and this is. Benjamin Gatti

You people were awefully hard on the guy, just for accidentally blanking an article, then locking it in the midst of vandalism--someguy 20:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I love you man, please NEVER go away!! I need you!--someotherguy 20:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Can I nominate you for wikipidias list of God-like figures list?! w/o you I don't think my life will be comple anymore--somedifferentotherguy20:02, 50 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, if there was a more god like wikipedian I haven't seen him--someothercompletlydifferentperson20:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No way, Ed. One incident does not undo months of Wikiservice. Leaving aside the rather bizarre support from the various anons, you continue to have my full support also. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

rather bizarre support??Whats that supposed to mean?--somedifferentotherguy21:72, 51 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll let you work that out...DJ Clayworth 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a wiki WIKI Wild and crazy wiki world it is ... grr... bark bark... OK, in all seriousness, I think Uncle Ed has done a good job and helped many people -and articles. For emphesis, I shall repeat that below. --GordonWattsDotCom 10:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed - I urge you to stay. And if you get tired of all the politics and bullshit - join AOL - and ignore any page starting Wikipedia: - as an AOL anon you can edit articles, improve others, and ignore the crap. In other words be like me - use your user account (or several user accounts) to watch the articles you like and then edit them anonymously and let the power of your edits stand for themselves. It is the best, and the only, way to return to the Wikipedia goal of writing a great encyclopedia. The only down side is that you can't be as helpful to new users - and they are thrown to the wolves - but fortunately there are some good users who have the patience to endure and be helpful. 64.12.116.6 02:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That color stuff is my doing; I simply wanted to bring this to Uncle Ed's attention; As I said in the prior edit summary, I would not edit anonymously, but I do support the intent of the poster here. Please leave my colourization schemes in place at least long enough to get Uncle Ed's attentions --all you "color deleters" out there. Thanks. PS: In all seriousness, I think Uncle Ed has done a good job and helped many people -and articles. For emphesis, I shall repeat that above. --GordonWattsDotCom 10:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

Please understand that I am not invloved in your RfAr- my comments were solely because of what I'd seen of you at RfA. It's good to hear that you'll stay with the project- as I noted in my statemnt, your contributions are valued. Incidentally, if you think that I'm trying to "force you out", you're mistaken. Also incidentally- am I one of the ones you refer to as being poised to "over-run the project"? Because I hardly think that's fair. --Scimitar ^parley 21:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

if i may say,and imsorry if this is out of line, but as with me, proove your wordswith actions. in this case, back him up, activly.Gavin the Chosen 21:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• you would all be doing wikipidia a horrible dis-service by prohiibitng this person from fufilling his duties, if that kind of actiuon is taken, it is a terrible shame--somedifferentperson20:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You CAN'T GO AWAY!!! you just can't!! my life would be so empty without you!!!! I NEEED YOU!!!!--averagejoewiki 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You are my god, and to see you cease your activities here would be a terribkle thing, and a terrible day in wiki history, you will and always shall have my support-someotheraveragejoe21:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think all thee attacks on such an honarable person represents a terrible failure to listen, and an appalling decay in wiki etiquette, and wiki protocol-somebodywhowantswikimocrocy 21:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

IRC Mediation Conference 3

With regard to the third (and hopefully final) mediation conference relating to the Ed Poor case, would you please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NicholasTurnbull/Mediation_IRC#Scheduling and indicate when you will not be available at the usual time for the forthcoming week. I am hoping to propose a time within the next few days.

I will also draw up an agenda for this meeting as soon as possible, which will be on the same page, and as for the previous meeting's agenda, I encourage editing in true wiki-style.

If you have any concerns, please don't hesiate to drop me a note. Rob Church ^Talk 23:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Shoot the Messenger?

Ed has done the community a great service. He's been unnecessarily humble; very open to the truth that not all members agree. Still, he must pay for his "crime".

A very large percentage of Wikipedians think just as Ed does: that the deletion process needs reform desperately. Most of us failed to do anything about it, often because the process appeared so well-entrenched as to be unalterable. Ed proved that it is not. Granted his alteration was temporary, but for a few blessed minutes, our community was free of at least one nexus of petty-minded evil. Many now follow where Ed has led, and the debate on deletion reform is the best thing that's happened to this project in a year.

Don't shoot the messenger. — Xiong熊talk* 23:57, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

WP:RFAr. JRM · Talk 00:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Sir; I don't understand your point. I have already joined Ed's RfArb as an interested party and made my formal statement. What more can I do there? — Xiong熊talk* 04:29, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Is there a rule that you can't add to your formal statement after it's made? I think that would be fine, as long as it's indicated clearly. There's the RFAr talk page, too. Your statements address Ed's deletion of VfD, exactly the thing the RFAr is about. I suppose many will watch Ed's talk page, too, but you're still not necessarily getting the right crowd. JRM · Talk 07:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You imply I've written something new here; I thought of it only as an informal and partial recap of my comments before ArbCom. I think you're right; the RfArb is about Ed's deletion of VfD; but the wording of the charges waffles around this and brings in secondary issues. I'll review and compare my remarks there and here and see if I ought to extend my remarks -- but brevity is the soul of wit, and of rhetoric, too. — Xiong熊talk* 14:45, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Right you are—but in that case I must say I think the way you state your case here packs much more of a punch than your original formulation. You nearly convinced me. Of course the RFAr is still partly motivated by all those times Ed Poor did something uncomfortably bold, but most of that is water under the bridge and could hardly warrant a current RFAr. Nobody can deny the VfD deletion is the thing that made the people run to their barns, get the pitchforks and compare notes on his attitude in general. Which, don't get me wrong here, is not a bad thing at all. JRM · Talk 21:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Gavin/Gabriel

OK, you asked me to not communicate with the Gavin that was Gabriel, and I pointed out that he inserts himself onto my talk page and articles I am on. He's still jumping into events I am involved in making stupid comments from the peanut gallery. For example, today he posted this: [1] on the talkpage of someone else completely trying to act all rude in a coversation he wasn;t in. He has also jumped in to talk pages of a guy who was blocked for multiple violations of 3RR that I reported to try to offer advice and so forth and I think is poking his head in elsewhere. IF you seriously expect me to not respond to him then it'd be a good idea if he kept his nose out of places it has no business being in. DreamGuy 00:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it would also be nice if you instructed him to remove his comments from within the evidence sections of other editors in his RfAr... If he wants to provide his own evidence section disputing comments, that's fine, but per the rules he is not allowed to jump in on other sections. He should either remove all of them completely or move them, and if he moves them he really ought to try for something other than childish denial of proven facts and trying to blame other people. DreamGuy 00:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

AND he just removed the sockpuppet tag from User:Pukachu jumping in there as well -- this is the "harassment" he claims I was doing to him in reality -- he follows me around undoing my edits and making stupid comments and then complaining when I do respond. DreamGuy 00:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

you want to put tags like that on pages? become an admin, until then tis not your place to modify other peoples pages.Gavin the Chosen 00:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Woodrow

This is up for deletion. I would like to have it kept as he is a significant critic of The Two Babylons. Would you care to vote on the VfD? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

random name search

I came across your name at random Lazygate 15:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Really? I thought we did something together with User:IrishPunkTom. Uncle Ed 15:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

self proclaimed

Ed, nice work on the self proclaimed deities. Balanced. Is this your article or is it your work? Robby159 15:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Not my article, and hardly any of it is my work. Do you know how to check out an article's "history" page? Uncle Ed 15:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cooperation and Policy

Thanks, Ed. I made that comment after receiving messages like I think Bengali sytle is like that huh! be shame on you pal..--Eddiewiki 19:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC). From the same set of IPs, I had received earlier this comment, NONE YOUR BUSINESS MR. MAGH.. Go back to Bengali wiki and do it whatever you like MR. MAGH. These, certainly, are nasty racist comments. I am not reverting the article anymore. Also, please review my comments and let me know if you think any of them is against any policies.

If you look into Talk:Rohingya, you can see my 2 or 3 month long effort to clean up the article. See Talk:Rohingya#Cleanup, Talk:Rohingya#Restructuring, Talk:Rohingya#MR.MAGH, Talk:Rohingya#Removing comments, and Talk:Rohingya#"Attention".

Throughout my time in Wikipedia, I have always tried to comment in a civil manner. If I am at fault in any place, let me know, so I can improve. As for comments in Talk:Rohingya, you can see that I have been making pleas to the anon IP block and subsequent sockpuppets for a long time. (see the talk page sections above). If I ever crossed any line, let me know. I have got abuse from several accounts, some even commenting on my educational status, my literacy and my national origin. I believe I have NOT returned any such abuse to the vandals.

Finally thanks for handling the issue. --Ragib 14:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The comments you quoted don't belong at Wikipedia. I have banned 2 of the sockpuppets. You have put up with a lot, but I must ask you to put up with some more. Please be patient.

There is a proposed policy about only complaining once per week about someone else's personal attacks to oneself. It's in a transition period, but I endorse it. (Sorry, I forget which page it's on.) The essence is to 'leave a clean audit trail' by setting a standard of courtesy that is so much higher than anyone else's involved, that the others stand out in clear contrast.

Please continue editing the article, but if you'll voluntary limit yourself to one revert per day that will make it easier for Mel and me to handle the problems. See also Wikipedia:text move. Thanks. Uncle Ed 15:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, for handling the issue in this manner. I would be delighted to limit myself to one or even no reverts per day on the article. This issue has disrupted my own handling of other articles on my to-do list, and if you look into it, this would help a lot. I am doing my own research for getting more facts on the Rohingya people, and would try to enhance the article with more facts. There is not much info available online. In any case, thanks again for handling the matter. I hope the flood of sockpuppets would subside, and editors to the article would focus on the contents. --Ragib 15:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I think I have just reverted the article more than once today, sorry for that. Some sections were blanked, and other users restored it, but the ips from the same group keep coming up and blanking. I re-inserted a language family reference with a citation, but that was blanked again by the familiar IP group. I also put the issue to the talk page, but no replies or references refuting the language link was provided by the blanking editors. I remember I put a voluntary 1-revert promise to you, since I've reverted the blanking twice, I'll not revert it again today, other than rv of vandalism. But you should take a look at the changes. Thanks. --Ragib 20:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm thinking of declaring it an edit war and protecting the page. Thanks for stopping at 2 reverts. Uncle Ed 22:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Talk page revert

Nope, just RC patrol. But best of luck to you in all your WP endeavours--hope you stick around. Yours, Meelar (talk) 15:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm staying permanently, regardless of the rfArb outcome (see my final statement). --Uncle Ed 16:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Rohingya

Thanks for your message, but I'd thought that that was what I'd been trying to do... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

My first attempt

Hi Ed, this is Jason at IRFWP. I finally added my thoughts to the Unification View on Sexuality page. I was hoping that when you have time you could take a look at it and fix up anything that's inappropriate or incomplete. I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Ninjajason

Moving a proposed guideline into a real guideline

Ed, I grabbed your name because you were the first one to create the page... Wikipedia:Naming conflict has been stable from editing for a long time and I think it'd solve plenty of really thorny issues. As an admin, do you know the process to move it from the current proposed state to something accepted? Care to take the step to do it? SchmuckyTheCat 23:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's merge the two articles, first. Then slap a "proposed policy" template on it.

Next step is to put it to a vote. Uncle Ed 13:19, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• thx. Merge, done. Proposed policy template, been there forever. Where does it go to a vote? SchmuckyTheCat 19:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I need to contact you privately. Do you have an e-mail address? 83.109.141.34 01:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Contacting me privately

Try Special:Emailuser/Ed_Poor. Uncle Ed 13:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid it returns "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.". Could you post your e-mail address here and just remove it afterwards?

Yeh, Ed. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. — Xiong熊talk* 16:28, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

I turned off the "Disable e-mail from other users" option. Please send me an e-mail. :-) Uncle Ed 17:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

you might have forgotten to enter an email adfdres...Gavin the Chosen 17:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I clicked it wrong. Try again? Uncle Ed 18:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Vampire article

dreamGuys at it agin, removing my additions, claiming they are crap when i tried rather hard ot make it a good one, and trying to insert pPOV again. all im trying to do is to help the article along, hes deleting massive sections and alteringthings with zero explaination. please help

I daresay everything in Wikipedia written about vampires is someone's point of view. Please be gentle about what others think. Uncle Ed 17:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks

Hello! I believe you liked this proposal when we were talking about it a month ago or so. I've formalized the proposal and would like to make it official policy (after some discussion, and probably a vote to get consensus). Your feedback is appreciated. Radiant_>|< 09:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Snapshots

Hello Ed,

I know you are interested in the idea of having reviewed layers of WP and snapshots of the same, for periodic downloadnig or reuse; after the latest questions about this on the mailing list and recent renewed interest this month, I started (better: simply suggested) a FAQ here: Wikipedia:Snapshots.

I'd also love to know how your work on a professionally-reviewed selectino from Wikipedia is going; are there any public reports so far?

Where are you living now? Perhaps you can make it to the next Beantown Wikipedia meetup. It would be nice to see you again. There is a usability expert from the area who will hopefully be there to discuss improving the WP interface for use by disabled readers.

Regards, SJ

小籃子 comment wikifix

Hey Ed, I hope you don't mind...I did a little bit of wikifixing to your signature at zh:User talk:小籃子. Tomer ^TALK 01:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act

Ed, Sorry about the VfD affair - Ironically, if you were less successfull in helping Wikipedia scale, it probably wouldn't matter, and while I'm the last guy to take advise from, here's one more voice to add to those who support you - regardless. There's a great line in Kidnapped by RLS in which the Scotsman says to the boy, "I always thought I liked you 'cause you never fought, but now that you fight - I like ya even more." I for one appreciate the humaity of it all.

Oh yeah - why I'm here. I added a sentence to Price about the extension. Might be a bit thick in places, I'm sure it will be pared down to skeleton before I press enter. Simesa "checked" with you before he made a change, so I thought i would as well. If you're busy counting rosaries or somethin' we understand. Benjamin Gatti

why?

Why did you made these edits to my userpage? It seems like you wanted to block me. I'm not a sockpuppet: In my userpage you can find a link back to my old username, which I changed because I represent a wiki community. I constantly contribute to Wikipedia and the other sites of Wikimedia by adding content, uploading images and reverting vandalism. At http://www.mediawiki.org/ I contributed a new rewritten CSS-based homepage and I also revert vandalism whenever I can. We try to have good relations wiki Wikipedia, as we currently have with Slashdot (where I get mod points and my reputation there is excellent, and my site has been slashdotted 4 times (and my blog one more fifth time) with more than 20000 readers. We also develop our own wiki software, and we invite the MediaWiki developers to share code. I'm not gaming the system, we just try to develop friendly inter-community relations. Www.wikinerds.org 07:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Nearly everything you write above is objectionable.

1. You created a second account - this fits the definiton of sockpuppet, yet, confusingly, you deny that it is a sockpuppet.
2. Your appeal to the number of contributions here or elsewhere is irrelevant to the point under discussion.
3. Your attempt to "develop friendly inter-community relations" seems more like an attempt to impose your will on this community.
4. Your appeal to rules to bolster that attempt is the textbook definition of Wikipedia:gaming the system.

If you will immediately cease your disruption of Wikipedia, I can forgive all the damage you've done - but if you continue I will ask the others to show you the door.

Follow the rules, or be elsewhere. Uncle Ed 15:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

According to the pertinent policy, "a sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name," and "the standard definition of sock puppetry" is "using one account to support the position of another."

Their respective contribution histories establish that the NSK and Www.wikinerds.org accounts have zero overlapping edits, so it's ludicrous to claim that their creator is "edit[ing] under more than one name" (let alone "using one account to support the position of another").

Furthermore, I'll direct your attention to Wikipedia:Changing_username#Alternatives. "You can simply create a new account with the desired name, and redirect your old User: and User Talk: pages to your new account. Put a note at the top of your new User: and User Talk: page to explain the change."

I find it highly "objectionable" (and rather mind-boggling) that you would accuse someone of sock puppetry (and threaten to block!) for engaging in actions tantamount to the above.

And incidentally, your rant about "disruption," "damage" and "follow[ing] the rules" is astounding hypocritical and downright laughable. —Lifeisunfair 16:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I did the opposite of threatening to block: See this diff if you have any interest in real life or fairness. Uncle Ed 18:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Your selective quotations from the definition seem designed to malign me."

1. Your use of the phrase "selective quotations" implies that I've deliberately presented excerpts in an out-of-context manner that distorts their meaning and/or scope. Please direct my attention to text from elsewhere on the page that supports such a contention.

2. My reply was a good faith effort to refute claims that I believe to be inaccurate. Please explain how I've maligned you.

"If he's stopped using his first account, fine. It's a valid sockpuppet."

No, it's a valid second account.

"I did not say that he was 'using one account to support the position of another' but that he was using 2 accounts."

The first account is not in use. This individual isn't "edit[ing] under more than one name," which is the broadest definition of sock puppetry (a term that typically refers to the deceptive use of multiple accounts).

"I do not recall threatening to block."

How should your insertion of the {{userblock}} tag (with the edit summary "Considering userblock") be interpreted?

"I did the opposite of threatening to block: See this diff if you have any interest in real life or fairness."

I'm strictly addressing the alleged sock puppetry. The user in question might be guilty of various other offenses, but that doesn't entitle you to pad the list with baseless accusations. —Lifeisunfair 18:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can't or won't consider the distinction between considering and threatening then there's no use talking to you. Have a nice day, man. Uncle Ed 18:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

One needn't use the word "threat" to convey a threat. When an admin accuses a user of violating a rule, and simultaneously informs the user that he/she is "considering" imposing a block, that clearly constitutes a threat. Such a threat can be appropriate, but only if the user in question actually has committed the alleged infraction.

I await your replies to my other points. —Lifeisunfair 19:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I conceived "considering" as a threat, and I believe this is how anyone else would conceive it. I believe I was within Wikipedia's policy when I changed my username, since I linked back to the old name from the new userpage, and I redirected the old userpage to the new one, as well. By no means I could imagine anyone calling this a sockpuppet, and there are no valid and invalid sockpuppets. Sockpuppet and username change are different things. I never tried to edit the same articles or make anyone to believe I was two different users, never. Now I changed username, after they requested it, however Ed Poor re-edited my user pages adding links back to my old username, although I had included a notice "Old username: User:Www.wikinerds.org" in my new user page. I won't delete Ed Poor's notices because I don't want to make others believe that I have something to hide, but I consider his edits unnecessary since I was the first to put similar notices in my pages. Wikinerd 20:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I used the term sockpuppet incorrectly. If you created a new account and abandoned the old one, then technically I have made an error here. If your purpose is a friendly one, then you might be interested to know that according to Wikipedia policy, "Multiple accounts have legitimate uses." (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Multiple_accounts)

I would also regard it as a friendly overture if you would agree to stop labelling my attempts to figure out what the heck you are doing as a threat as the word threat connotes a policy violation on my part. I know of no policy which forbids an Administrator to announce that he is investigating possible account abuse. I sure hope you are not applying words like threat or threaten to me in an attempt to harm my reputation. This would, as you might reasonably suppose, be a clear violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

At your wiki there might be no rules, but here there are. Please follow them, or I will aske the arbcom to limit or suspend your account. If you label this request for compliance as a "threat", I will take that as a refusal to comply with our civility policy. So I suggest you think over your aims carefully. Uncle Ed 15:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Vampire

DreamGuy is edit warring agian, and i do not wish to be getting myself in trouble. please assist.Gavin the Chosen 07:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You agreed to stay away from him; you can't take that back. Please copy the disputed passage here, and I'll take a look. I would also like a diff, if you know how to make one. Uncle Ed 13:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

He can't post the disputed passage here, because: A) He reverted something like twelve different paragraphs of Vampire that were changed by three or more editors (shown here) so that he could get it back to the way he last reverted it 24 hours before, and B) He's been blocked again for violating the 3RR rule (as discussed here) so can only post to his talk page right now. DreamGuy 14:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. If I had my way, he'd be on 1RR parole. Only one revert, per day, per article. And each revert must be accompanied by a coherent explanation on the article's talk page. Uncle Ed 14:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, one of these days the RfAr is going to finish up, and I think they have more drastic things in mind. DreamGuy 15:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

NSK

Hi Ed. I've made some changes to this RfC to make it adhere better to the standard format, and added the issues with spam. I've not signed it yet since it's too early to claim I tried unsuccessfully to resolve the dispute. If you don't feel the suggestion to change username should be there, feel free to remove it, but it's the only thing I can see which would resolve the spamming issue. Some diffs of problematic behavior, and a notification to NSK are still needed before it meets all the RfC rules. Angela. 16:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it's my first one, and it's a lot of work to do it right. I appreciate the help and guidance. Uncle Ed 17:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

VVAW

You left a message on 209.86.4.111'2 page (good luck with getting an anon user to respond to you) about their edit to the intro on the VVAW article. Before you kill that person's edit, please respond to what I wrote on the article's talk page:

I'm having a hard time with some segments in the introduction. Any back-up for them?

"Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) is a tax-exempt non-profit corporation, which adopted the North Vietnamese position on the Vietnam War and opposed US involvement in it."

And

"They did not oppose war per se, nor did they merely want the Vietnam War to end. They campaigned for the victory of the North."

--Rroser167 13:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that there's a valid question here. I would deeply appreciate your response.--Rroser167 16:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

eh

somebody (http://jnana.wikinerds.org/index.php?title=User_talk:NSK&curid=764&diff=0&oldid=3251)created an account Ed Poor on one of my wikis. Was it you? I responded to the RFC. We have a #wikinerds (http://portal.wikinerds.org/irc) channel on FreeNode, but I don't think I have anything to say on IRC. Wikinerd 21:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course it was me. Who else? Now, are you willing to talk this over or not? Uncle Ed 15:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel has three 3RR violations already today

On Vampire, User talk:SlimVirgin and also Otherkin (with the last being an anonymous IP that he admits narrows it down to a three block radius with his house and that also made edits on the exact same pages he edits). He's burning up the 3RR violation page. I tried to email you but I don't know if it got through. He's totally messed up several articles and continues to do so. DreamGuy 16:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

If you would learn to accept whne your wrong and stop rtemoving what i place on it, then it wouldnt be this way, DrteamGuy.

ed, if you wish to have a cpmnversation, use my emial or IM me. im seriously wondering why i have to be the village idiot,and no one ever does anything about the constnat incivillitiy that DreamGuy shows? hes r8ude to almnost aeveryone at al times. i mght sinply go away for a while. maybe then ppl will leave me alone.Gavin the Chosen 16:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel/Gavin

Hi Ed, the situation with Gabriel isn't working. The reverting and disruption continue, and apparently he's been editing without logging in, which is arguably sockpuppetry (though I haven't checked the diffs yet). See my talk page starting at User_talk:SlimVirgin#Gabriel.27s_just_back_from_a_block. My idea now is that he either be blocked indefinitely or that he agree not to edit any page DreamGuy is editing, and vice versa. What do you think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Awards

Ed, I've collected your barnstars and other awards on User:Xiong/Ed Star and transcluded that onto your user page. You can always remove the reference if you like, substitute instead of transcluding, edit as you see fit, or move the page into your own user space -- they're your awards. I'm just sorry not to see them anywhere.

I urge you to take pride in your action and in the recognition you deserve. I understand that now is a stressful time and there are many for whom no struggle session can possibly brutalize you enough. Do as you think best; but know that in your shoes, I would have no slice of humble pie. You've done the Wikipedian Community a great service. Stand tall. — Xiong熊talk* 17:16, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Thanks, I was on the verge of just taking the rest of the week off. Right now I don't care that much if the trolls win; I could use some encouragement right about now. :-( Uncle Ed 18:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Encouragement? Encouragement?? GO MAN GO! YEAH! You DA Man! Don't go changing (too much) Uncle Ed. We loves ya! May the road rise to meet you brother, may the wind always be at your back and may the rain fall soft upon your fields. Hamster Sandwich 18:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)