Current Wikistress

Pre-election stress

Come back soon, Ed. While obviously you've got hot-button issues like the rest of us, your normally even-tempered mediative (or should I say meditative?) personality is extremely valuable and encouraging to many of us. Good luck destressing....I imagine you'll feel a lot better on Wednesday morning, even if some other Americans wake up a little crestfallen (I admit, I don't share your political viewpoint, but I respect our mutual right to disagree amicably). And if you should wake up to bad news, well, come back here and edit away your blues. :-) See you soon, I hope. Jwrosenzweig 21:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good work

Hehe, October surprise - I just sat down to write it myself, when I saw you had beaten me to it by a few hours :) →Raul654 23:53, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Don't let the mailing list tempest get you down, you're doing great work on Wikipedia. Jayjg 16:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

Thanks for the support, you all. I'm not a saint, and I get discouraged just like anyone else. I've been having a lot of mood swings since mid-October, and I predict there's an even bumpier road ahead. -Ed

De-sysopping

I have uploaded a comic strip image that seems to relate to the blocking war of yesterday. See if you can figure out what the major items represent:

• snow:
• shovel:
• man:
• woman:

Current Talk

Blocking

Yes, I agree with you block of me. I can take my punishment. That's right. Please also understand, that I type from a public library with many access stations. You blocked someone else. Except for once did I edit an article w/o logging in. I will always log in to edit. I just ask that you be mindful of the fact that my id # is a library computer and that you blocked somebody else. Thanks.WHEELER 14:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about the IP block. Please pass on my apologies to your mates at the library. (By the way, I checked back later and found the auto-block function had been triggered; I immediately unblocked the IP, of course.)

This raises a technical question. If a user attempts to log in (while blocked), does the wiki software then automatically block his IP, or what? I must research this.

Finally, thank you for taking it so well. It's not meant as a punishmnt (in the retributive sense), but more as an attention getter. Welcome back! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:54, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Police Powers

I have been wondering about something for a while now. In observing the functioning of the wiki community, I have noticed that you and a variety of other sysops sometimes use their authority to police disputes and more or less unilaterally punish people that are being disruptive. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, since rigorously going through the dispute resolution process can consume far more time than is really warranted by most forms of annoying behavior on the wiki.

However, in reading the material on administrative authority there seems to be very little written authority for admins at any level to act as unilateral police men. In fact, phrases like administrators are not imbued with any special authority and explicit reference to enforcing ArbCom rulings, seem to suggest that admins are not supposed to be unilaterally deciding how to enforce the standards of behavior.

I'm bringing this up not to be critical of you in particular, but because I would like to get a better understanding of what the role of sysops within Wikipedia is. Actually, you are the first admin who I have observed acting unilaterally who also seemed like a nice enough guy that I felt comfortable asking about this without worrying (too much) that you might hold a grudge against me for doing so. Dragons flight 16:41, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

You are outing Ed: He's a cop. A nice cop (most of the time), kinda like the cop on the beat. I would say that it is his personality. I think he would act like he does whether he were an admin or not. He does a lot of good around here. Sometimes he is high-handed. Sometime his POV is evident. That's Ed. Sunray 17:12, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Excellent points throughout, Dragons flight (May I call you DF?). Thank you for bringing this up!

I've always been a sort of "champion" of courtesy and fair play here at Wikipedia. There has never yet been a clear distinction between acceptable and unacceptable use of this website. Various policies have evolved and been accepted as consensus, but the conflict between (a) including everyone and allowing instant total editability to articles and (b) enforcing our standards of accuracy and neutrality has never been resolved.

If I get away with the occasional slamming of a door, it's because I've earned enough trust in the community that people realize they can approach me afterwards and get me to reconsider. After all, we're only talking about dots on a computer screen. We have plenty of backups, so no info ever gets lost, and actions such as blocking or demoting are easily reversible.

I don't hold grudges. I rarely even mind being insulted. I'm the guy anyone can come to with a problem, let off some steam, safe in the knowledge that I'll come to their aid -- even when *I* am their problem. I guess it comes down to a matter of parental heart . Like if my daughter yells, "Daddy, I hate you!" what can I do? Ground her? Send her to bed without supper? That's not going to resolve anything. It's better for me to say, "You must be awfully angry at something, sugar. Would you like to tell me about it?" (Alternatively: "Hmm, sometimes I hate myself. I often wish I were a better man.")

The 172 thing was a one-shot deal; my "power" to de-sysop with only a technical glitch and that has been cleaned up. But I can block non-admins, the same as any of the other 415 admins can. And I think current Wikipedia policy allows unilateral (as you put it) blocks for certain rather obvious policy violations. Just look at the block log, there are dozens every day, some for indefinite periods meaning forever. My blocks are usually for an hour or so, occasionally for 24 hours. The point is to get the person's attention.

A block (like child time-out) gives the community a break from the offensive behavior and may provide an opportunity for reflection on the part of the offender. It doesn't always work, though. Some people get all legalistic and want to make a federal case out of it. (If I were on the arbcom, I would probably recommend interim blocks for such people, then "sentence" them afterward to "time served" :-)

Enforcement of rules depends on swiftness more than severity. In the meat world, many people look up to me as a resource: a man willing to serve, to help out, to assist, to smooth things over, to take charge in a crisis, to teach, to admonish. I use my real name on this site with no fear of retribution. Even my nickname "Uncle Ed" is real.

Thanks for stopping by, and I eagerly await further dialog. :-)

(Aside to Sunray. I'm not a cop, I'm a computer programmer at a TV network. A friend of mine is a cop, and it stresses him out. I supervise a Sunday School, though.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:22, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Cop, computer programmer, Sunday School supervisor—variations on a theme, perhaps? My point was that admins are people too! :-) Sunray 17:50, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and expansive reply, and DF would be fine. Is there a reason that there isn't a policy someplace that says sysops (or some other level of admin) are granted the authority to "time out" people for bad behavior? Assumming it is applied in a appropriate way, it would seem to be a pretty reasonable response in many cases, and I agree with you that swiftness of punishment can be a lot more meaningful than severity. Dragons flight 17:45, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Love bombing: any better now?

I didn't see your comment on the Talk page until just now... I ran across the article in VfD. I rewrote the introductory paragraph and added some stuff about Margaret Singer.

I don't really like any of the original paragraphs, though I retained them. The "housewives and students" sounds like, um, someone's interpretation. The current second paragraph, "Love bombing includes the use of warm, caring body language" is just a description of affectionate behavior, real or feigned.

What do you know about the origin of the phrase? Did the Moonies UC members use it first and did Singer pick it up in her interviews, or did she invent the term (it certainly sounds derogatory to me) and did the UC members "retaliate" by using it in a positive way?

Thinking about your statement that UC members themselves sometimes use it in a positive way, I'm thinking the opening paragraph needs more wordsmithing. Something like "it can be used in a negative way to mean the feigned use of affection ... or it can be used in a positive way to mean the deliberate assertion of sincere affection..." I dunno, that's getting pretty complicated.

Dpbsmith (talk) 02:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I first heard the expression in 1977, as a new recruit to the Unification Church aka "The Moonies", when I was eighteen years old. (But I also heard the expression "no problem" first in the UC and thought it spread from us to the rest of the world, so I'm not a relible source. :-)

I'm pretty sure it means deliberate assertion of sincere affection - I don't recall anyone saying or even hinting that we should try to fake it.

On the other hand, the majority of criticism of UC recruiting methods focuses on the Oakland, California branch of the church. Along with love-bombing, they used a tactic which our own church founder Sun Myung Moon never officially condoned, i.e., concealing their identities as UC members. He told Dr. Sontag that members ought to say who they are first, and that persecution brings greater blessing. (I always adhered to Rev. Moon's slant on this, while many others found excuses not to - which created considerable tension in my relations with church officials. I feel vindicated now, since the officials who chewed me out for being too "up front" have all dropped OUT of the movement, and I am gradually rising UP in the hierarchy. One must be patient, I suppose.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:21, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

So, do you have any serious issues with the current version of the article (06:35, 4 Mar 2005; opening sentence: "Love bombing is the deliberate use of an intense show of affection, by a group of people acting in concert. It is used in reference to a recruitment practice of organizations, particularly those described as cults. When used by critics, it carries the implication that the show of affection is insincere, and that the practice is manipulative... " And can you give a source other than yourself for its use by UC members?

(I have to say that the word "bombing" has always struct me as very odd and certainly gives me an impression of cynicism and manipulation... akin to the phrase "kill them with kindness..."...)

I don't have much existing knowledge or very strong opinions on "cults," BTW... this is a mini-research-project for me...

P. S. The Margaret Singer quotation says that the phrase was "originally associated with one of the early youth cults." Any idea which organization she might have been referring to? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I remember Aidan Barry , then regional director of the Unification Church of New England, saying, "Jimmy Carter has the atomic bomb, we have the love bomb" (circa 1979). Does that help? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:27, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming

Ed, you blanked the global warming talk page. I have trouble believing that this is what you intended to do. Dragons flight 15:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming

Ed, you blanked the global warming talk page. I have trouble believing that this is what you intended to do. Dragons flight 15:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're right. It was a technical glitch with Opera 6.05 - Dr. C. corrected my error immediately. Several times in the past he has re-formatted or otherwise corrected my talk page contributions - always with the best of intentions and superb results (it's almost as if he could read my mind). He and I actually get along quite well, having corresponded privately by e-mail (we really only have one bone of contention between us, but have managed rather a courteous relationiship otherwise!). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 12:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I did wonder (and I think I may have suggested it to Ed; maybe I just thought about it) if it might be time for "year zero" approach to the talk page and have a fresh start, and archive the lot. But perhaps not, the same stuff comes round so its useful. So I half-suspected Ed might have done than, but he wouldn't have wiped out the achive links so I was pretty sure it was just a glitch. BTW (Ed), I am nicer than you and I can prove it: try connolley and poor at http://www.kband.com/nicer.pl. OTOH I have no idea whatsoever on what basis it does the comparison :-). And while I'm here you might be interested in http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/03/wikipedia-as-soap-opera.html.

Sorry, but I'm actually just as nice:

The Niceness Comparison
Type in two words or people's names to find out which is nicer. 

Results: 

Ed Poor as nice as William Connolley 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1998 K-Band 
inspired by NPR's 9/20/1998 Weekend Edition Sunday Puzzler with Will Shortz

SPEBSQSA love-bombing

In reply to your remark... you apparently thought better of and deleted it... but I'm going to reply, anyway...

When a guest attends a Barbershop Harmony Society meeting, it is, in fact, customary to sing "You're as Welcome as the Flow'rs in May," and it is quite common for the members to surround the guest while singing. The lyrics are:

You're as welcome as the flow'rs in May,

Come along and sing your cares away,

Where good fellowship and song hold sway,

You're as welcome as the flow'rs in May.

I have heard barbershoppers say that participating in a quartet is "better than sex."

In Meredith Willson's "The Music Man," four school board members who are constantly arguing are transformed, when Harold Hill coaxes them into singing one perfect chord. He announces "Ladies, from now on you'll never see one of those men without the other three."

Sinister, indeed. We may call it "fellowship," but... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Damian Anderson wrote:

One man's love-bombing is another man's being

showered with attention. Everyone likes such care and attention, so it is unfortunate that when we love as Jesus taught us to love, that we are then accused of having ulterior motives. [1]

Hey, Ed...

I just want to say, I really appreciate that, as deeply as you feel your convictions in something that I cannot myself agree with, that you still act with great honor and integrity. I apologize if that sounds like a backwards compliment ("Hey, can you believe it? He's a M--nie and yet he's got integrity!") but I'm currently getting tired out by people who insist that because they make their biases blatant, that actually amounts to integrity (by some warped logic) while those of us who try to edit according to standards rather than according to our allegiances are really only "hiding" our biases and can be looked down on and abused by the rest. So -- it's served as a reminder that I should be showing my appreciation more regularly to the people I admire for their integrity. You and I don't always agree, but I never have to read your edits wondering if you meant and believed what you said, or if you just found it advantageous. Thank you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ed, the "people" Antaeus refers to is most probably just old me. Over the last few weeks, Antaeus and I have found ourselves at opposite ends of edit controversies, without finding a way to collaborate without getting "down and dirty" on each other (even if Antaeus professes that he hasn't...). I have rubbed Antaeus the wrong way, and vice-versa. As you probably already know from our previous collaborations, I am not the kind of person that readily offers the other cheek, so we have ended up in quite a bit of a brawl here and there. That does not mean that I shall not continue and try in finding a way that will enable us to collaborate, even if it just means being one the counter-balance to the other, for the benefit of WP readers. The position that I advance is that editors should be conscious of their own biases, and openly embrace and admit them, with the knowledge that the friction expressed in talk pages, sometimes generates the kind energy that end up resulting in excellent, NPOV articles. I know that there may be kinder, gentler ways to accomplish that, but those have evaded me so far in particular in dealing with Antaeus. As I know you to be a teacher, I hope you bring your experience to bear on these, sometime childishly and stubborn, contentions of ours. Finally, a note to of admiration to my opponent, inasmuch as I know him to be as passionate about is POV, as I am. Alas, we both care, indeed we do. --Zappaz 02:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you're BOTH doing a good job of cooperating. If only we could meet in person, this job would be much less difficult. Gosh, I wish I could share the details of the Church Committee meetings I've been having lately: we're all on the same (ideological) side, and yet making any progress on the smallest organizational matters is like marching through shoulder-deep mud. Hurt feelings, tantrums, cultural misunderstandings: it's more entertaining than watching pro wrestling on TV ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:23, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hi, on the 172 arbitration case I have given evidence on the block war and asked arbcom to consider your actions on the merits.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172 2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Tony_Sidaway

I don't think you have any reason to be ashamed of your actions. I would like to see if arbcom will consider your role in the affair and whether they agree with me, because I think that would have implications beyond this affair. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I would not have seen that page, otherwise! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:39, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Abuse

Let's not say things like "you are a F#####t". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

You rock.

You are undoubtedly the calmest, most sensible Wikipedian I have ever met. (Re: Adam Carr). Thank you and warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 20:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

You give me far too much credit *blush* -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:43, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Skyring

Skyring is a worse than a crank, he is a vandal, and some action should be taken to bar him from articles where he is pressing his pet theories and wasting everybody's time. In the circumstances I think I am being quite restrained. Adam 01:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's the beauty of my system. By publicly slapping the last person to commit offense, we (a) bring attention to the problem, (b) get the "good" ones to be on their toes and demonstrate admirable restraint, while (c) the "bad" ones continue to commit offense - and will then clearly merit a body-slam. (Please note that I'm using terms like slap and body-slam metaphorically!)

I've gained considerable stature and respect around here by instantly becoming humble and compliant when the others draw my attention to a problem which *I* am causing. This either sets a good example for others (which I prefer) or makes them really bad by contrast, in which case the authorities step in.

I can't recall ever "losing a battle" here. When I'm wrong, I "switch sides" and join the right side, thereby making me "right" (!), and when I'm right it's usually pretty obvious. (I'm often the last person someone encounters on their way out. Goodbye Lir, goodbye Xed, etc.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bring back quickpolls

I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? --Ryan! | Talk 05:12, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think that quickpolls were for User vs. User. That kind of dispute is for the AC. The User vs. Wikipedia dispute is the kind of case that is good for quickpolling. I acknowledge that there is another user involved, but someone needs to be able to call out a troublesome user. --Ryan! | Talk 17:47, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, why would anyone hassle good ol' me?

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Christian cults

Take at look at it... you might have some relevant comments. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please don't be offensive in your edit summaries

I'm referring specifically to Cult apologist, which you started with an edit summary of "Those dastardly evil-doers who whitewash the crimes of destructive mind control cults!!!" It sorely disappoints me that you chose to "write for the enemy" in a spirit of derision and contempt; I thought you above that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Antaeus. I really should know better. My sarcasm was un-called for. Um, can we still be friends? :-( -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't be... I just hope that we can both remember that we both honestly want to make the world a better place, and that unites us, even if we disagree on some levels about how such a thing is to be done. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Human

Ed, Would you be willing to look at Talk:Human? A group of editors severly modified the article from the 1 March 05 version, which fairly acknowledged the importance of seeing humanity through multiple perspectives in the first sentence. The current version defines humanity as bipedal primates who have developed various technologies. I see this as a regressive change, going from a more inclusive approach to a more exclusively reductively biologistic one. Surely there should be some acknowledgement of the way in which the vast majority of human beings have viewed humanity in the present age and in the past. --Goethean 15:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've made a couple of changes in the intro and described them at talk:human. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:26, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I've left a note for you at Talk:Human explaining about the compromise introduction we're working on in case you didn't see it. It's here. Thanks for your input. Best, SlimVirgin 17:51, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I answered your question on my talk page.--FeloniousMonk 21:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You guys are nice, so human: a monk and a virgin, hm. Could I interest you in joining me in "cult"? (Not a typo, I mean help edit the series of articles on cults with Zappaz, Andries, Antaeus, Tom, Will, et al.? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:06, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli settlements RFC

There is an outstanding solicitation for comments on the length and relevancy of the Sasson Report section of the article, as well as the removal of the POV tag. Very few have responded. Please give us your input. Thank you.--A. S. A. 14:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear in my request to you. The input I was taking about relates exclusively to the Talk contained in the last 2 segments, the Sasson Report and |RFC comments. I by no means intended to waste your time by having you read those ancient and closed Talk sections preceding them, of which you say you reached to about half, leaving the relevant topics unread. If you can, please read them and put in your two cents. Thank you. --A. S. A. 18:02, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Frivolous new article

I found your new article Debunking of the anti-cult movement myths frivolous. It was easy to put criticism in the anti-cult movement or mind control or wherever. Can you please refrain from creating such frivolous articles? I would welcome though an article Making of a Moonie that seems a notable book by Barker. Andries 18:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Will merged that text into anti-cult movement, and tried to NPOV it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Check it out

Please check out republic. And I don't know what I am talking about.WHEELER 16:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of purported cult

Need your help at List of purported cults. --Zappaz 00:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eli Flam

Why did you produce the orphan stub Eli Flam? I assume if he was notable then you would have said more. [2] might be a source if it is the same person.--Henrygb 22:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I had to blank out Eli Flam because the entire article (the one line of it) apparently was lifted from a copyrighted website. I guess I have to echo Henrygb's question - why? Cheers, -Willmcw 08:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dude, no one's gonna sue us for 18 words - yes, eighteen (I counted 'em). Besides, did you check the "What links here" link? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything linking to it, which only deepens the mystery. <;) -Willmcw 20:40, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well, I think it was Appalachia. I put a quote from him there, defining the region's boundaries. I'll see if somebody deleted the quote when they deleted his name.

The irony of it is, that most of the source (The World & I ) is about to get GFDL'ed - because of a last-minute suggestion I made at the end of a meeting this week! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:03, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I guess I don't understand your perspective on copyrights and the suitably of using Unification Church material directly for Wikipedia articles. If there's anyway I could understand better I'd like that. Also, regarding organization. Do you object to the Category:Unification Church? If not, it would be helpful if you could add it to related articles as you create them. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:19, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to pay more attention to copyrights. Until and unless UC-related organizations GFDL their text, I better treat it like anything else copied and pasted from the web. I don't object to categories, I just never learned how to use them; I guess I'm wallowing in the luxury of having 20,000 people follow me around and clean up my little errors and omissions. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:37, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

BOSTON WMEET

another one :)

WMC RfAr

I'm sorry to see what you had to say. I always admired how you operated on Wikipedia - that, despite your difference in opinion that you could address issues fairly. I would never expect such a hostile attack on WMC, I would never expect such a misapplication of NPOV. I have lost an awful lot of respect for you. I am sorry that I read what I did. Regretfully - Guettarda 21:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may be confusing "devotion to truth" with "commitment to Wikipedia's NPOV policy". I respect Dr. Connolley for his commitment to uncovering the truth. I just think he's too intolerant of people who disagree with him, to be permitted to dominate the climate articles. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:38, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to say this, but I no longer trust your commitment to NPOV or the truth. I realise that on the scale of things in Wikipedia I am a nobody and you are one of the biggest somebodies, and consequently I realise that my opinion really isn't worth terribly much. Your "evidence" was a citation of right-wing POV that bears little relationship to reality. You are free to push that POV. NPOV does not require equal time. The article on earth gives the idea of a flat earth half a sentance, and does not delve into the ideas of current flat earthers. To say that WMC is permitted to dominate the climate articles suggests that there is no such thing as the 3RR, no such thing as other editors. It's easy to defeat a single editor defending an article. But that isn't the case. WMC speaks for the majority who simply don't feel obligated to defend the climate articles against POV-pushers. And he is more willing to compromise than his opponents...but then you know that already because you watch the whole climate series, the link is on your User page. Your comments appear deceptive. I badly misread you. My mistake. Guettarda 17:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind if you disagree with me, but you seem to misunderstand me:

• I am not a big somebody here. I have merely worked hard, supporting NPOV and inter-contributor harmony.
• Your opinion is worth a lot (at least to me).
• Right-wing POV would be that Dr. Connolley is wrong or bad. I am not pushing that POV; if you read my comments, you may recall that I praised his efforts to find the truth. I am calling for a fair description of the dispute between (what you call) right and left wing POVs. If you've explored my user page, you can't have missed my quotation of Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger.
• If you think the right-wing POV bears little relation to reality, that's your business. But Wikipedia is not concerned with your opinion or mine. Only bona fide sources, such as articles in science journals, statements by practicing or retired scientists, published books, etc. really matter. (One guy tried to cite me as a source, but Jimbo made him take that out.)
• It shouldn't be about defeating a single author (and by the way, it's not as easy as you think). It should be about cooperating to make a neutral article, not one which defends the majority point of view. Reverting all info which casts global warming advocacy in a bad light is POV pushing, which you seem to realize is against Wikipedia policy. I don't know why you don't recognize that Dr. C. is POV pushing, unless it's that you are so avidly devoted to that POV yourself that you can't step back and see your own advocacy for what it is.
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy. Every article should describe the various points of view, rather than trying to determine that one POV is right.
• It's not about compromise. We don't want an article that says global warming is partly right, or almost right. We want an article that says that X% of scientists in the field believe in it - and which summarizes their reasoning. It should also say that Y% disbelieve it, and provide their reasons also. It should not make conclusions for the reader.
• Disagreeing with someone is no reason to attack them. Saying Your comments appear deceptive is tantamount to calling me a liar. I hardly think I could have become "one of the biggest somebodies ... in Wikipedia" if I were. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I just wanted to say don't stress to much about it. I'm probably much closer to a left-wing hippie than a right-wing idealogue, so I sit back and chuckle to myself everytime I see them calling something I say "right-wing POV". I think it helps to remember that a lot of people get very emotional about the environment, to the point where they view the slightest questioning of whether or not it is actually in danger as a heretical and mischievious lie. They believe so strongly in the fragility of the ecosystem and the imminent danger, that they feel threatened if others are not convinced [3] [4]. It's only natural that this ends up running counter to NPOV, because neutrality and fear are contradictory philosophies. If you thought your life, or the lives of your children, were in danger due to something, you might act strongly to try to stop it, and in the case of global warming, the only way they know to stop it is to persuade everyone that it's a solid and significant threat. So to them, this becomes "spreading the truth", and takes precedence over other philosophies, like neutrality. So you have to keep in mind the belief-set they are coming from in order to not take anything they say too personally. — Cortonin | Talk 23:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With that said, NPOV is the main policy here, and I think it's a noble goal for an encyclopedia. In most of what I've seen of your editing, you do a pretty good job of aiming for that. So don't get too upset if people passionately disagree with you here and there, because there are always going to be people who have a problem with neutrality when it runs counter to closely-held and personally important beliefs. I think your assessment of this situation shows a good dedication to that neutrality. — Cortonin | Talk 23:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

English Wikiquote

Hi, Ed Poor, perhpas you don't know me, I'm Aphaia, a sysop on English Wikiquote. Thank you for your latest offer to help, I heard it from Angela and Anthere.

Though such vandalism yesterday is rare currently on English Wikiquote, we are now rapidly growing and our community remains still small. Any good editors are welcome. I hope to see you again on the project. Cheers, --Aphaea* 05:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to cults

Ed, there's a proposal for you on Talk:Opposition to cults. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood RFAr

Ed -- I've been reviewing some of the information from the ongoing NPOV China Naming convention saga and you have tried to bring peace there. I just wanted to take a few minutes to talk to you as I'm advocating for Instantnood in his arb case and would like to get some background from you. Please contact me when you get a chance. --Wgfinley 18:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ed, got your message, I'm on IRC right now if you want to catch up with me there or I'm on AIM as progboatguy72. I use some other messengers as well but AIM is preferred, look forward to hearing from you. --Wgfinley 18:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm behind a firewall. Try e-mail? (Or chat here, if it's not private...) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

NP, you don't have an email linked to your account so drop me one at wgfinley at dynascope dot com and I will write you back with my request. --Wgfinley 19:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence page format

Remember to watch whether you're editing a Talk or Evidence page, as the formats are different. (SEWilco 18:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Mainland China

Your latest edits to that page was quite humurous for some reason, but it does have some truth in it. However, I have a feeling it will be reverted by users who are keen to present it as a "politically nuetral" term (you even mentioned this in that page), related in part to policy-formation in this site! :D --Huaiwei 19:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be humorous, even though I chose light-hearted words. If the article is about the IDEA that there is a part of China which people talk about, then we at Wikipedia may have to mention things which DIPLOMATS have chosen not to mention. I believe that is one of the roles of an encyclopedia.

As far as I can tell (with my limited geographical knoweledge, there are three signicant divisions within the Chinese nation:

• • the PRC (often called simply the "mainland")
  • Hong Kong (and one or more lesser-known S.A. regions)
  • Taiwan, etc. (governed de facto by ROC)

(No doubt local sailors would refer to the part of China which is contiguous with the continental land mass as "mainland" while talking about other PRC-controlled islands - which only confuses things further.)

But it's convenient for those who wish to discuss the relations between the parts, to have names for the parts. "Don't talk about the fact that Taiwan has been ruled independently for several decades" - is a diplomatic taboo which I don't feel obligated to observe.

Can't we just say that PRC controls certain areas fully (called for convenience the mainland) and rules the SAR's in a looser fashion? And that the PRC claims but clearly does not control the third part (which calls itself the ROC)?

We need not endorse any particular claim, but we can certainly describe what all the claims are. It's as easy (!) as describing the Arab-Israeli conflict. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the humour is derived from the way a topic as tense as this was interpreted. ;) There is quite some debate regarding the terms Taiwan and ROC, which I shant talk about since we are mainly talking about the "Mainland" here. Interestingly, it might be seen as less "geographical", and more "political", because that term, although including the relatively huge island of Hainan, excludes the much smaller islands in Hong Kong and Macau. In addition, it also excludes a peninsular protruding into Hong Kong's territory which is geographically contigious with the mainland. In that sence, "Mainland China" is defined by political boundaries rather than geographical features. See my logic so far? I am considering working this into that page....at least when some "order" is restored first.

Needless to say, the term is far from being "politically nuetral", something folks like User:Ran has been insisting. And to add on to what you have already said, the term "Mainland China" is prefered by independence-minded or anyone else in Taiwan who refuses to refer to the government in Beijing by their official name. In addition, I have noticed a general trend amongst Hong Kongers, that pro-autonomy advocators are especially hesitant in any portrayal of HK as a part of the PRC, even tacitly, and that includes using the term "Mainland China" extensively as a means of highlighting the divide between themselves and the "rest of China", aka, the "mainland". Instantnood's behavior in feverishly prefering that term, and protesting my every move in presenting the two entities together even in a seemingly innocent list like China Southern Airlines destinations (oh which btw, I have just discovered he tried to break the two SARS away from the PRC again!) reminds me of that (hardly politically nuetral) viewpoint. There lies my suspicions of his ulterior political motives, which of coz he hotly denies.

I have always maintained that the term "Mainland China" is an informal one, especially when compared to the "PRC", the "ROC", or even, to "Taiwan". Opponents to this viewpoint, namely Instantnood, insists it is formal because it is used by the PRC government in official statements as well as part of some organisational names (which could very well be explained by your above statement about that elephant, or it can simply be a word of convenience compared to saying "The PRC minus the two SARs"). Although I do not protest its usage in some cases, I am against usages of the term together with countries, or having a page title of XXX of Mainland China categorized with countries, coz both suggests it is a country, which it isnt.

Just some main pointers popping off my head.--Huaiwei 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• iawtc. SchmuckyTheCat 22:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: What names do you want?

Briefly,

• ROC-administered territories = Taiwan + Pescadores + Quemoy + Matsu + Wuchiu + Taiping + etc.
• Mainland China = PRC-administered territories - Hong Kong - Macao

  — Instantnood 21:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

And that definition of mainland China happens to be disputable too, btw.--Huaiwei 21:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summary so far

It looks like "mainland China" has multiple meanings, but certainly it has an informal one: MC = PRC administered territories, excluding HK & Macao.

Therefore, it would be premature to move or create any articles with a target title of "X of mainland China".

An interesting question (for me, anyway, in my ignorance) is whether there can be a series of articles like any of the following:

• geography of China
• economics of China
• history of China
• politics of China

• geography of the Peoples Republic of China
• economics of the Peoples Republic of China
• history of the Peoples Republic of China
• politics of the Peoples Republic of China

• geography of Peoples Republic of China
• economics of Peoples Republic of China
• history of Peoples Republic of China
• politics of Peoples Republic of China

• geography of the Republic of China
• economics of the Republic of China
• history of the Republic of China
• politics of the Republic of China

• geography of Republic of China
• economics of Republic of China
• history of Republic of China
• politics of Republic of China

(It would get even more tricky if we consider a "foreign relations of PRC/ROC/China").

Is the problem that some people don't like referring to the PRC as "ruling, controlling or governing" HK & Macao? If so, can we not say thay PRC claims sovereignty of HK & Macao although "some advocates" (which the article would name, of course) oppose, resist or refuse to recognize this claim? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone has a problem referring the PRC having sovereignty over HK. Everyone recognizes this as a point of fact so it shouldn't be a problem. I'm not even aware of any seperatist movement that is taken seriously. Let me go on though. (I'm not trying to speak for Instantnood here, but my understanding of the arguments he presents.) What the advocacy becomes, from the HK (not Taiwan) POV is in putting the seperateness (One Country, Two Systems) paramount. Thus, Laws of the PRC should be Laws of MC, because HK and Macau are so different. Cart, horse. SchmuckyTheCat 18:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like the dispute is partly about how much prominence to give the "separateness" of the SAR's (from PRC). As I understand it, the PRC claims and controls HK and Macau - which it calls Special Administrative Regions under. And is the principle of "One Country, Two Systems" an idea which the PRC originated or at least accepts? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ed...

(William M. Connolley 20:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Saw your last set of comments on the RFA and now your stressometer... so... briefly: I think you do have a blindspot over GW; the tone of your last set of comments pretty well restores you in my opinion from the rather poor (IMHO) tone of your first; with you it was a dispute with friends, but with Cortonin it definitely isn't; the only "colleague" (in an out-of-wiki sense) would (probably) be DragonsFlight, but I don't know who she is. Best wishes - W.

(William M. Connolley 20:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Oh, and in a sort of BTW-ish fashion, StC has been a right pain over SAR, doing his best to get it deleted or something... based on all the China stuff, can you understand why, cos I can't.

Re:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Danny

Sam Spade 16:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was joking btw, altho I was hoping somebody wouldn't notice! ;) I may be an inclusionist, but I can laugh at myself too. Would have been a shame if we had lost that content tho, good thing danny resolved things so nicely. Cheers, Sam Spade 20:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)