User talk:Ed Poor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Image:Afd.png

I respect your scientific expertise, Dr. Connolley, but try to bear in mind that we are writing a neutral encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed 16:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You need to distinguish scientific and political debate and you're failing to. This will lead to meaninglessness. Voters don't get a vote on the science (indeed, as people are fond of saying (possibly inaccurately) no-one does). Lets stick to the science here, which is what Gavin meant I think. The evidence from TGGWS is that there isn't much to debate - otherwise why would they have to fake their data and mislead Wunsch? If they are interested in having a proper debate on solar variation vs T, why didn't they show the up to date figure presented in fig 1 of Damon and Laut? Please provide a considered answer to this question William M. Connolley 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I would, but I just promised Raymond to stay out of climate. Cheers! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't what I was looking for. You ought to provide an answer here. Are you interested in this stuff or not? Or you can just be interested in the politics but not the science if you want - its not obligatory William M. Connolley 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, with Raymond's permission I'll leave you with this. I am interested in both the science and politics of global warming.
Partisans on both sides have been sloppy, but just as you side with AGW, I side against it on similar grounds. You are convinced that scientific evidence supports AGW; I'm convinced scientific evidence support natural warming.
I've been following a lot of scientific issues over the years, such as nuclear power safety, enviornmental carcinogens, DDT, etc., and frequently found out that the media hype is contradicted by the calm reasoning power of science a few years later.
I had hoped that Wikipedia, by remaining neutral on scientific controversies, would enable each political side to learn a bit about the other viewpoint. That way fence-straddlers might actually learn something. With nothing harder than high school math, it's easy to see who's using the statistics correctly.
But I am disappointed, because apparently the logic and math of science is way over the heads of the average (literate!) person. Why, the idea that a hypothesis is tested indirectly by deriving inferences and testing those isn't even part of our scientific method article. Why? Too much logic? A => B. If not B, then not A. I've known that since grade school.
So, I'm off again. Enjoy your work . . . --Uncle Ed 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] thanks

Thanks, Ed, for your comments on my user page. I don't know if you followed the arguments that led up to that discussion but I totally agree with your comment re: starting a quarrel about whether someone is quarrelsome. Those guys have knocked it off for the time being but I expect that as soon as I have something to add to one of the pages they have ownership issues with, that the accusations will start again ... sigh. csloat 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag bombing

Tag bombing articles [1] that run against your personal bent is not constructive editing, Ed. Why am I not surprised this is exactly what you chose to do after creating that tag? FeloniousMonk 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to agree, and say that I will revert all uses of this tag by you from now on.JQ 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what "tag bombing" is, and what FeloniousMonk meant by the phrase "run against your personal bent".
Pointing out weasel words is within policy, isn't it? How is it "not constructive" to request attribution for a phrase like "has been criticized as"? FM himself has recently fixed a number of articles which I tagged or used Wikipedia:text move on.
I hope this wasn't done in a spirit of "there wasn't really a problem, see how wrong your previous edit was?" but rather in a collegial, "oh yes, I see the problem you pointed out, and now I've fixed it". --Uncle Ed 02:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The tag was misused in Steven Milloy. If you'd read the article in full you'd see that all the criticisms were attributed. If you want it to be useful, be less indiscriminate in its application.JQ 03:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, perhaps you're saying that unattributed claims are okay in the intro, provided they are attributed further down, in the body of the article? --Uncle Ed 03:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that. An intro is supposed to cover main points. But if you want to fill the intro with links, feel free.JQ 04:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. FeloniousMonk, I applied the tag to whatever articles came up in Google when I searched for specific "phrases to avoid" listed at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.
  2. If you'll check my contribs, you'll see that very few of these touched on issues that you and I are disputing (assuming that's what you meant by "ideological bent").
  3. However, you pointed out elsewhere that you feel there is a "pejorative" connotation to the phrase "weasel words" and that on this basis you objected to my tagging phrases with it.
  4. But I hardly went on a "bombing run" with the tag, nor did I target any particular target. I simply Googled.
  5. Accusing me of making edits according to an "ideological bent" is not civil. It has the effect of intimidating me, which (assuming good faith) I'm sure was not your intent. But it made me think long and hard when the 6th tag in a row I placed just happened to be one of your hot button topics. I was afraid you would accuse me falsely of abusing the tag or something like that. Which it turns out is just what you did!
  6. Please be civil, and tell me WHY you object to an edit BEFORE accusing me of 'violating the rules'. In other words, don't smack me with a 'clue stick' - just clue me in. --Uncle Ed 13:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format breaking

Hate to tell you this, but you've killed the formatting of the Jonathan Sarfati article. Don't put carriage returns after references - the Wiki software interprets them as paragraph breaks. Adam Cuerden talk 11:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not correct. I'm a computer programmer and (usually) very careful about the results that my coding produces.
I added some MORE carriage returns (CR) and inspected the HTML produced by them. The Wiki software did not interpret them as paragraph breaks.
Two CR's in a row, however, will produce a paragraph break. Maybe that's what you meant? If so, please point it out. --Uncle Ed 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. So it seems. But it's an awfully choppy-looking article. Perhaps we needs to combine it up into paragraphs? Adam Cuerden talk 13:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The article itself needs a lot of work, with paragraph breaks being one factor. Generally, we start a new paragraph when introducing a new aspect of a topic or if it just "looks too long". We don't want to intimidate the reader, but make it easy for them to find the information they are looking for. (We can't assume they'll read the whole thing from beginning to end.)
Let's discuss an outline at the article's talk page. --Uncle Ed 13:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 16:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Ed

I just put a bit of Father's speech on my homepage so that whenever anyone wikistalks me it will count as a reading. :-) Steve Dufour 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, don't both you and the other person have to be present? --Uncle Ed 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but only if the guidelines are strictly interpreted. :-) Steve Dufour 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Ed Poor: welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk (discussion) page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!   - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sense of humor

Good to see[2] -- all too rare around here! Raymond Arritt 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TGGWS

Ed - TGGWS ended up protected due to edit warring over "polemic". It was nice and stable until you barged in and changed it. Why exactly do you see yourself as having good reason to overthrow the decision reached in [3]? It really is not at all helpful William M. Connolley 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to do a self-revert on request. Which version do you want to back to? --Uncle Ed 20:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, a version before you restarted the edit war would be best. I see you've done it - thanks William M. Connolley 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK to move thread to your Talk page?

Hello Uncle Ed. User:Blueboar appears confident that the thread you started (and I joined) was not correctly placed on Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/FAQ. I'm not sure that you agree, but if you do, how about if we move that thread here, to your Talk page? Then I would leave a pointer from the original location to here. If this sounds like a bad idea, no need to respond. Thanks. EdJohnston 01:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? --Uncle Ed 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it okay to use verifiable sources which support one side of a controversy?

A thread was moved here from Wikipedia talk:Attribution/FAQ because User:Blueboar argued that it didn't belong in that department. Though I'm not fully tuned in to where this would belong, I offered to move the thread here and Uncle Ed agreed. Pointer was left in the original location. See [4] for the original location. EdJohnston 02:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Suppose there is a scientific matter which is the object of hot debate (in newspapers, on TV, in political campaigns). One side says that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of a certain idea which lends primary support to a policy the side is advocating.

  • Along come several Wikipedians who quote the same sources the "side" quotes, particularly the side's claim to enjoy near-unanimous scientific support.
  • Is it correct for articles to say that the "idea" has near-unanimous scientific support or a "scientific consensus"?
    1. Should article state that (side A) says they enjoy overwhelming, near-unanimous or "consensus" support from scientists?
    2. Should articles and article titles say or imply that side A really does have that much support?
  • Is it POV-pushing to:
    1. State that side A's scientific idea is a matter of scientific consensus?
    2. State that side A's scientific idea is "disputed" within the scientific community?
    3. State that it is unclear how much scientific support there is for side A's idea?

How about changing articles and their titles so that they do not state the degree to which the idea enjoys scientific support? In other words, just list scientists and scientific bodies and their positions on the matter. --Uncle Ed 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your questions are impossible to answer without specifics... it often depends on how what the topic is, how strong the scientific consensus is or is not, and the nature of any disagreement. To put it simply, we should not claim consensus that isn't there... but if there is a clear consensus then yes we should note that. You are really talking about NPOV and FRINGE issues... which have their own policy pages. Blueboar 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This type of issue has come up on the talk pages of Evolution, William G. Tifft, Retrocausality and in many other articles affected by fringe science. It might be instructive to collect some of the carefully-worded compromises that people have come up with. We really do need to state the degree to which the idea enjoys scientific support in many of these cases. I don't think we can dodge the issue in a 'He said, she said' fashion. One article wanted to say that a certain position was 'totally ignored' by mainstream scientists, but it turns out to be impossible to find citations to support such bald formulations. They have to be carefully worded. EdJohnston 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Evolution... there is indeed such an overwhelming consensus in favor of one side that we have to mention it in the article. However, please note that almost all "he said, she said" issues are the realm of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, and really are not issues for this policy page. Try asking again on those pages. Blueboar 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not in Evolution itself - he said it came up on the talk page. I'm not sure what that means, but I think it's common knowledge that 99.8% of biologists support the theory of evolution. So EdJohnston must be referring to something else. Please don't dismiss our questions. --Uncle Ed 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dismiss your questions, I'm mearly pointing out that this isn't the right venue to ask them. It's like going to the Department of Motor Vehicles to discuss your Tax Audit... different departments. This policy is about the need for verification and the need to avoid original research... neither of which (as near as I can tell) are issues in your questions. Did I miss something? Blueboar 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to smile, because this is exactly what I'm talking about! Last week a friend went to the Department of Motor Vehicles to renew an expired driver's license. He had not driven in over 2 years. After waiting in line for over an hour, he finally got to the window where they issue the learner's permit. Only then was he told that his old driver's license and passport was not sufficient to identify him. They had his social security number on file, but the bureaucracy requires you to show your social security card
So he had to go to another office and this time wait 3 hours, because he had lost his social security card!
This story sheds light on the question I'm asking. My friend wanted permission to drive a car. There was something he didn't know, i.e., that he'd have to get his lost social security card replaced. He thought that DMV should have told him that! (The attitude of the clerk was that it's not their job.)
Question: When there's a dispute over whether one side in a political issue is supported by a "scientific consensus", how do we write about this?
  1. Do we 'agree' with the side that says that "the science is settled" or that there is a "scientific consensus", and state this as a fact in the article?
  3. Do we avoid agreeing or disagreeing with either side, and just say that SIDE A says their position is supported a scientific consensus?
  4. Do we describe what SIDE B says, if they disgree with Side A about whether there is a scientific consensus?
In case you can't imagine what I could possibly have in mind, I'm thinking of any of several environmental controversies like the use of DDT to prevent malaria transmission by mosquitoes; asbestos abatement; fluoridation; global warming; etc. --Uncle Ed 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
In your original posting, you asked when we could declare that a certain viewpoint was the scientific consensus. I think that *every one* of the five numbered assertions that you included in your original question would be too difficult to find citations for in an actual WP article. To see an example where people were trying to document the degree of consensus, look at the debate on William G. Tifft. EdJohnston 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Example: Here is a line that someone proposed to include in the William G. Tifft article:

"Tifft’s redshift quantization, as well as other intrinsic redshift theories, are still occasionally cited, though other cosmologists note that Tifft and his results have been nearly totally ignored.[8][9]." (underline is in the original).

Here is what other editors said in response:
Now, to me, your suggestion reads as original research because Tifft's research is not "still occasionally" cited. The point is that in the community, his work is basically dismissed out-of-hand. The majority of people who work on problems related to redshift distributions out-and-out ignore Tifft's ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs). 21 December, 2006.
<...> If what you claim about Tifft's work is so, you need to provide some citations that say those things. Without the citations, encyclopedia editors will dismiss your claims. Lou Sander 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
In other words, the other editors refused to accept any generalizations about the degree to which Tifft's ideas were ignored by the mainstream, unless that was proved in some way. I believe that should still be our rule. Documenting that something is fringe, and documenting that something is mainstream, are two forms of the same issue. It still takes hard work to do either one, but it is not impossible. EdJohnston 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Global Warming Swindle

Ed, I do not know if you got a chance to watch the entire documentary. You are can find it on YouTube here: The Great Global Warming Swindle [5] Best wishes.RonCram 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ron, I started to watch it the other day. It looked really good, but I got distracted and only watched the first few minutes. Anyway, I like reading better. --Uncle Ed 16:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LIA

Ed, there is talk for you on the t:LIA. If you're going to POV-tag it, please try to answer William M. Connolley 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mother! <grin>
OK, thanks William M. Connolley 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asbestos and the law

Ed', I modified the intro to this article a little in view of your comment. When you get a chance, have a look and see what you think, ok? Cheers, Wikityke 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turning off the HagermanBot

Try User:HagermanBot/OptOut. Raymond Arritt 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to be careful, though. I would only want it turned off for a few minutes at a time - as when adding to the glossary of abbrev's on that talk page. If I forgot to turn it back on, this could bother other contributors. Anyway, thanks for letting me know about opt-out. --Uncle Ed 15:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yo, Ed

Do we know each other from some other forum? Skyemoor 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm daring (or foolish) enough to use my real name. --Uncle Ed 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response

I don't see any point in editing an article that is owned by an administrator who thinks himself above Wikipedia rules--too much risk given the power differential, and the Skyemoor remark makes me realize that I'm also risking someone writing a false hit piece about my Wikipedia edits given the sensitivity of this particular subject. If you want to navigate the dispute resolution process so that abusive editors are disciplined, I'll add my name and my personal experience. -- TedFrank 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you promise? It's a difficult undertaking to go through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, but I'm willing to do it if you'll back me. I think the first step is:
  • Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.
If we've tried that, it's time to climb the ladder to the next step:
  • Disengage for a while
I've tried that, but it doesn't seem to work, so:
  • Further dispute resolution may be necessary
This used to involve a 'Request for comment', but that might have changed recently; I have some studying to do. --Uncle Ed 22:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You're certainly within your rights to go to RFC. Do keep in mind the notice at WP:RFC that "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors", especially in light of your current status. Raymond Arritt 22:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Gosh it's noisy in here. Are you suggesting I'm not a steady enough supporter of NPOV? All I want is for articles to step back and refrain from drawing conclusions about conflicting views; to permit all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one; to refrain studiously from stating which is better; and to leave reader to form their own opinions. What's so bad about that? --Uncle Ed 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Scientific data archiving

Please take a look at this Talk page, especially the part on "pseudoscience" and William's reverts. The POV of certain editors is preventing them from objectively dealing with the facts. The concepts involved are not difficult but they do take a little investment of time to understand. You may need to spend some time in the Pseudoscience article to be fully comfortable. I hope you are able to find the time to help out. Thanks! RonCram 14:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, okay, but let's get the terminology straight before I start. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be "objective" but "neutral". Do you know what the difference is? --Uncle Ed 15:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I was talking about the editors involved, not the article. People have to be objective in order to rightly consider the facts and the citations. The articles are supposed to present the facts and citations in a balanced and neutral POV, meaning that readers are allowed to go to the sources and make up their own minds. Does that help? RonCram 15:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the latter half of that. Article should be neutral, as I pointed out with much moaning and groaning in Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view (see diff here) But is it really necessary to be "objective"? And if so, what can we do if two editors each claim to be objective while asserting opposite "facts"?
Say rather that Dr. C and I disagree on what the facts are because then we can "agree to disagree". It is not objectivity per se but the agreement to disagree which allows an article to be neutral. --Uncle Ed 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Your first edit on this article...compare this to my first one.  ;-) --Stephan Schulz 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Great minds think alike! --Uncle Ed 11:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, by objective I do not mean that editors have no point of view. I do not even think that is possible. I mean only that they are able to see facts for what they are - facts. Unfortunately, instead of acknowledging the facts or seeking to provide mitigating facts of their own to provide balance, some editors simply delete the material because it offends their world view and they do not want readers to have access to these facts. Regarding the similarity between your first edit and Stephan's, it is remarkable. I provided citations initially, but it seems strange to do so because the evidence for the polcies is in the article itself. The article quotes the policies of NSF, Nature and Science journals. The concept of data archiving is new to many editors, including the ones who should know and abide by the policies. Reading the Talk page is most informative on this. The statement that most journals do not enforce the policies was added by William Connelly and is probably true but is OR. William has not attempted to provide a citation. The "weasel words" were written by me. If you can read the article I cited and come up with a better way to say it, it would be welcome. Thanks for contributing! RonCram 15:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, by the way, the best version of the article can be found here. [6] Please look at this version to see all of the issues involved.RonCram 17:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ed, it seems the Intro was creating a misunderstanding. Please take a look at the best version now and comment on the Talk page. The best version is here.[7]RonCram 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I responded to your comment on my User Talk page. Just giving you a heads up. RonCram 16:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitchens

Ed, I think it was a little unfair for you to encourage me to explain my arguments in the sandbox and utilize that for testing out new versions of that section there, and then for you to go ahead and butcher the section in the actual article without even trying to modify the version in the sandbox nor to respond to the discussion there. csloat 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Want me to self-revert so it doesn't "count against you" in terms of WP:3RR? --Uncle Ed 11:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops, I can't; you beat me to it. [8] Okay, I owe you one free self-revert. Fair enough?
Thanks, Ed. csloat 19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your deletion of WMC's reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Global warming, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Raymond Arritt 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not deliberate, and I already offered to self-revert. Why tag-bomb my page? Check my contribs instead. I'm not a newbie. Sheesh! --Uncle Ed 16:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Revert?

Good grief. You claim to intentionally revert to what you claim is the wrong version? How on earth is that a good faith thing to do? Why would you do that? --Blue Tie 16:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're new here (11 June 2006) so I'll explain. Or you're a sock (oldtimer who started a new account), in which case I dunno what to say.
  1. When there is a dispute, an admin (as I once was a long while back) will revert "without prejudice" to a previous version. We jokingly call this "the wrong version" as the choice will never satisfy anyone. I was careful to pick a version other than my own.
  2. Then I had second thoughts, because I spotted Raul's removal of the pov-check tag. I assumed if he was satisfied, that was good enough. So I reverted to his version instead.
I'm not trying to win a fight here. Just pick a version and continue from there. The last thing I want is an edit war.


Well at least I understand. And I accept your sense of good faith! --Blue Tie 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GW intro

Ed, for reasons that are unclear, you reverted to a version of the intro that I consider to be stupid, viz Although global warming has occurred in the past, according to the Energy Information Agency, the term is most often used to refer to the warming some scientists predict will occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. The ref to the EIA is out of place in the intro - there is no reason to pick them out as a source, it looks dumb. Also the sentence is now ambiguous - do you mean the EIA says it has occured in the past; or the EIA says it most often used to, or what? This version is clearly inferior to the one that has been stable for ages and won the article its FA status William M. Connolley 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pick any version you prefer, I'm easy-going. I was trying to go back to the pre-blue era.
Ed, this is appalling - you revert to a version you refuse to defend. You say you were trying to get back to pre-Blue (good) but what you actually do is restore his version. Am I to take you seriously? Please fix this William M. Connolley 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
But your references to stable or FA status are meaningless. The article has serious neutrality problems, in that it tends to endorse the UN view. It also implies (or outright states) that a "majority" of scientists endorse the AGW theory, but without citing any polls. (The editorial by Oreskes is interesting, but is itself disputed by Peiser. Do you want the article to endorse her literature search?) --Uncle Ed 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both statements by WMC and Poor Uncle Ed. See my comments on an article re-format (and possible re-write) on the talk page. --Blue Tie 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy now?

[9] William M. Connolley 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's precisely the sort of thing I had in mind when I posted this (see diff). :-( --Uncle Ed 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
How is that supposed to help? Since you're editing against RA all that does is call him a monster William M. Connolley 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Exact opposite of what I meant:
I think what N was trying to tell me is that in telling others their behaviour is wrong I run I risk of drifting into bad behaviour myself.
  • By telling other editors they are "editing badly" I can wind up making bad edits.
And by falsely accusing other fine, upstanding human beings who are doing their best - of being monsters - I would become a monster myself.
So in a way, I agree with you: I should not be calling other people monsters. But posting the N-reminder was purely meant as a goad to myself: a reminder to stop being so dadratted self-righteous around here, like I'm NPOVier than thou.
I'm just a man, William. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(You may even have a belly-button.) -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you are. Lets leave N out of it and return to RA being driven away, shall we? This has happened principally because of the likes of Blue Tie William M. Connolley 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exact quote, and close translation, of Friedrich Nietzsche

Wer mit Ungeheuern kampft, mag zusehn,   daß er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird.
Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst,   blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.
And when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Enjoy... -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I owe you an apology

Hello! I was reported as having violated 3rr Here. This is my first known instance of policy violation. I feel badly about it. No action was taken but I still feel badly about it. I was cited as having reverted you 2007-03-25T13:33:44 here as an unmarked partial rv of [10]. I specifically apologize to you for the error and the angst. Though there was no action taken, I have voluntarily blocked myself from editing wikipedia articles and talk pages for 24 hours from the date that this notice was filed on the 3rr board. --Blue Tie 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's okay. I barely even noticed that. Consider yourself fully absolved. :-) --Uncle Ed 13:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There was one more [2007-03-25T17:16:19 here though I think in that latter case, I was probably unaware of reverting you. There was some discussion on the 3rr that these were the same and they look like it to me. Something odd happened there. But again I apologize. --Blue Tie 14:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Really, it's okay. Just take it to the talk page from now on. If your contribution is reverted more than once, it's a sign of instability - in the the article, not in you. <grin>
We all aim (or should aim) for a clear and neutral explanation of the topic. Oh, yes, it's nice if it can be accurate, too. But when there's disagreement on what the "facts" are, should we try to make the article choose among the competing views of "fact" or what? --Uncle Ed 14:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This is unhelpfully vague. Give an example of competing facts William M. Connolley 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That, on the other hand, is helpfully clear! I have to leave my desk for a while, but I *will* reply soon. --Uncle Ed 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you did, really -its still regretably fact-free. See my comments there William M. Connolley 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In my mailbox

I'm on the Independent Institute's mailing list, and they sent me this commentary, which fits your interests more than mine. -- TedFrank 00:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's put Singer's ideas into an article. Can you help me do this? --Uncle Ed 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I leave that to others. I'm on deadline for a couple of pieces, and don't really want to spend time getting personally attacked for the quixotic task of fixing POV problems in global warming articles, given the view of several administrators that NPOV doesn't apply to global warming discussion, and the fact that another admin threatened to ban me for participating in the discussion. -- TedFrank 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI Violations?

Ed, I am trying to get more information to see if it is a Conflict of Intrest violation for an Environmental Activist/Green Party member to be actavly editing pages that have to do with Environmental issues. Your thoughts?--Zeeboid 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably no more of a conflict than for British Antarctic Survey member William Connolley (User:William Connolley) to edit. Call me crazy, but I have consistently lobbied for experts like Dr. C to be able to contribute to Wikipedia. (My only issue with William is that often his edits aren't neutral; other than that, I'm glad he's here.) --Uncle Ed 22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that WMC is net positive value to WP rather than perfect. But I couldn't claim perfect for myself either: could you? --BozMo talk 08:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I am under the belief that POV pushing is the biggest thing hurting wikipedia's respectibility more then anything else, as vandilism can be easialy seen and corrected. I have just never known an Activist to maintain a NPOV.--Zeeboid 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
One is not usually called upon to make a public self-assessment like that. I am, as you know, on probation for "tendentious editing ... and POV-pushing". Who am I to disagree with the arbcom? Perhaps I have a blind spot when it comes to global warming and intelligent design and Communist genocide.
On the other hand, I think it would help if Wikipedia would not endorse either the liberal or conservative positions on these three issues. If this is "POV", so be it.
My contention is as follows:
  1. Wikipedia articles on those three topics are biased in favor of liberal POV.
  2. They should not be.
  3. Corrections should be made to them, such as:
    • Describing points of view other than the Liberal POV.
    • It is not "POV-pushing" to add well-referenced 'statements of fact' which disagree with the majority, provided that these additions are not portrayed as being more widely held than they really are
Is it "tendentious" to add to an article on China, the claim made by some sources that Mao Zedong murdered 20 to 60 million Chinese civilians? Is there a way to label this claim properly, e.g., as 'a minority view'? Or is adding the claim at all a violation of Wikipedia rules? --Uncle Ed 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that you believe there are inherently "liberal" or "conservative" positions on scientific issues such as global warming and evolution is a very large part of the problem. It colors your whole outlook. Raymond Arritt 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the "inherently" part of that, but everyone knows that US voters are split 50-50 on the issue. Even liberal Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe has said so: 23% of Republicans accept AGW while 75% of Democrats do.
Or were you not referring to political disagreements about the science? Or do you think that all scientists are utterly impartial and objective? Or what? Your comment above was unclear. --Uncle Ed 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Take out "inherently" if you wish. Physical reality is independent of the observer, except in the relativistic limit. Raymond Arritt 01:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I am enjoying learning from you. --Blue Tie 19:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And I as well. --Skyemoor 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shifting ground

How about "Nothing is better than a perfect life and a ham sandwich is better than nothing ergo a ham sandwich is better than a perfect life"? --BozMo talk 08:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Lack of Brains Hinders Research" ~ UBeR 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William's actions elsewhere

Ed Poor, can you please inform William of his misbehavior at History of the Yosemite area‎. He is persistently vandalizing the page by removing a valid {{unreferenced}} template, despite the fact I contacted him and talked about it on the article talk page. He's been persistent and is engaging in an edit war. I can't do this by myself... ~ UBeR 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Don't worry about Uber. He's getting forgetful: [11] William M. Connolley 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Ed, this another problem. The administrators here don't care to look at edits or behavior. Foremost on their decision making is whether this person holds status or not. Obviously Wikipedia asks us not to look at the editor, but rather the edits. This is obviously very rarely followed by fellow administrators, which is a unfortunate reality. Obviously, WP:ATT Fully supports my actions, but William here is encroaching on the very policies that try to keep Wikipedia stable, and administrators care not for such behavior if an administrator is doing it. I know you are a level-headed member of Wikipedia, Ed, so hopefully you can look past the appeals to authority and look at what's really going on. ~ UBeR 23:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm on probation, you want me to risk getting blocked over this? Hmm... --Uncle Ed 03:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware of this. Nevermind this. ~ UBeR 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you working on the Conservapedia Page?

As one of the users you banned, I was wondering if you had something to add to the Conservapedia page? As a sysop on their site, I'm sure you are uniquely suited to edit the Wikipedia page and look for opportunities to add content. Menkatopia 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not vandalise our project templates.

Thank you. —David Levy 01:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

! Duh, it's April Fool's Day. Lighten up. --Uncle Ed 01:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism is prohibited 365 days per non-leap year and 366 days per leap year. —David Levy 01:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I'll go self-revert it. Sheesh. --Uncle Ed 01:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Already taken care of. —David Levy 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well I'll go revert my self-revert. Happy AFD! --Uncle Ed 01:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —David Levy 02:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, for how long? 5 1/2 years? That's how long I've been a Wikipedian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 2:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Take a look at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page for consensus on what is and isn't ok on April Fools Day. -- Chuq 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, and you used to be a "senior admin." Neither includes the authority to ignore policy and do whatever one pleases. —David Levy 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CMU

Yep, I got my PhD there in 2001. Phiwum 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] framing merg proposal

Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your input please?

You gave great input some time ago in the JW articles, I was hoping you could halp with a comment or more at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. It is a content question and a dispassionate POV would help us determine if certain information is OR or not. George 07:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/_/User_talk%7EEd_Poor_6f26.html"