Wikipedia:Editor review/Ed Poor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Username

Ed Poor (talk ยท contribs) STATEMENT Uncle Ed 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Wow 43,000 + edits! You are an excellent contributor to Wikipedia, you have been here almost since Wikipedia began. I must point out that you forgot to make a statement about yourself above but that is not vital, all I can suggest is pushing your edit summary usage up that little higher, sometimes it can make all the difference, all else I can say is wow!. Happy editing! The Sunshine Man 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    • In 2004, I created a spin-off article from Augusto Pinochet to 1973 Chile coup to defuse a long-running, bitter NPOV conflict. In the intro, I called it a watershed event in the history of Chile and pointed out that Historians and partisans alike have wrangled over its implications ever since. Everybody agreed that I settled the conflict by describing out all the disputed points fairly, that wording in the intro paragraph has remained essentially unchanged since I placed it there nearly years ago.
    • I also did a lot of good work on Middle East topics such as Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, which I (as a pro-Israel, American Jewish man) created in collaboration with User:Mustafaa, winner of a barnstar for "ability to take criticism (and abuse) in your stride and use it to improve articles!". We disgreed on every point but "agreed to disagree" so that we could write about each point of disagreement in a way which partisans on each side could agree with accurate and fair.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    My attempts to contribute to the series of articles on global warming have been frustrating and disappointing. I have been spectacularly unable to get contributors to 'agree to disagree' on any significant point in this area. My attempts to do craft what I felt were "neutral" descriptions of controversial points turned into what the arbcom called "POV pushing" and I am currently on probation.

How could I be so successful in one area and not in another? Could it be something as simple as a blind spot? I'm convinced that even if I do have a blind spot that could not be the entire explanation.

Please review my edits and offers some suggestions. --Uncle Ed 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)