User talk:Ed Poor

Template:Adminchat

Template:Rfmchat

Contents

1 Appeal for assistance 2 WP:RFM 3 Gitmo 3.1 POV fork 3.2 Qur'an desecration by US military 4 BrandonYusofToropov 5 Medation Committee Template 6 Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs 7 ooooops! :D 8 Terri Schiavo mediation 9 My RFA 10 Edmund Ward Poor 11 Template:Terry 12 please have a look (I think this is pretty urgent.) 13 BYT RFA 14 Did I miss something? 15 Sam Spade's requests 16 M Noticeboard 17 Just so we're clear .... 18 Block 19 Wikipedia:Policy enforcement 20 Wikipedia:Policy enforcement 21 List of friends 22 Enforcing no name-calling 23 RfA 24 Race and intelligence 25 Message

Appeal for assistance

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

WP:RFM

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

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

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

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

Gitmo

POV fork

Ed, to me a POV fork is an article that either A. pushes a particular POV or B. split a particular POV out of an article in order to make that article free of that POV. I'm not making any judgement on the POV conflict at hand at all. I'm just in favor of resolving content disputes, not creating second articles on the same topic to spread the mess around. --FCYTravis 22:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Qur'an desecration by US military

Ed, what's the go with the high number of page moves on that article? You've been pinged on WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a long story. The short version is that every time the other contributors changed the scope of the article, I would change its title. It should be stable, now that Brandon tweaked it. But the whole gang wants my head in a basket now. Well, I always said someday I'd get lucky and they'd pull my permit. Or maybe common sense and NPOV will prevail. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Weeelll... certainly I think that there is a lack of giving you the benefit of the doubt: they most certainly should be assuming good faith. However, I'm not certain that User:Commodore Sloat really was personally attacking you, though the language used was most definitely inflammatory and I wonder if I would have reacted any differently. My suggestion: take a small break from the article, or don't let the guy needle you. Speak to another admin, if need be. Someone like User:Lupo, who is a neutral party and can see things fairly objectively. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I shall certainly follow your advice. How can we cooperate, if no one listens to anyone else? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Let's see: how long has it been? At least 48 hourss since I've edited either of the Allegations of Qur'an desecration articles.

• Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 (Redirected from Qur'an desecration by US military); or,
• Qur'an desecration by US detainees which is earmarked for deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Qur%27an_desecration_by_US_detainees).

My last edit to the above 2 articles (or redirects leading there) was:

02:16, Jun 15, 2005 (hist) (diff) Qur'an desecration  
controversy of 2005 (→Repercussions - fixed link)

ToyToy keeps asking me to clean up the redirects, and Fizzle says I'm welcome back to the team, but Brandon says it's not nearly long enough - so I hesitate. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusofToropov

You could start by apologizing openly for a) constantly moving pages without securing anything like consensus and b) implying that you and I were somehow collaborating on your latest, disruptive page move, which we were in no way, shape or form doing. That's what I would put on the list. BrandonYusufToropov 19:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No need to yell, Brandon. Anyway this link to the US Senate's debate over the comments of Sen. Dick Durbin may be helpful. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/16/whitehouse.durbin.ap/index.html) It appears the issue of Gitmo is spilling over to the Senate floor, and getting quite heated there.--ghost 12:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed, BrandonYusufToropov has requested mediation over a conflict with you. I am willing to mediate the dispute. Do you accept? If so, please end me an email at pgunn@dachte.org. --Improv 06:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course! Thanks for offering to do this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Medation Committee Template

I believe you gave me (JCarriker) more support than I have from the mediation committee when you added the template to my nomination. It currently says MC : 4 I believe it should say MC: 2 support, Community: 2 support, unless you move MacGyverMagic (MGM)'s vote to MC in which case it would be MC:3 Community: 1. -JCarriker 11:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm far too generous. I'll go take a look at that. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs

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

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

ooooops! :D

I fully, fully, fully apologise! the 'shit' remark was refering to generic 'shit' as in 'what is this shit?' or 'shit happens' :) and the go jump in the adriatic sea was a remark on both sides to cool off! See, I live in Patras, so i prefer the Ionian Sea from the Agaion Sea :D

Trust me, no personal remarks or attacks there. I personally think that we (all of us editors dealing with the topic) should chill the crap out and go grab a beer together or 10 and sort this shit out, really really quick. No offence to ethnicity or anything but we got more important things as a penninsula to deal with. you will be assimilated into the EU sometime in the next 10 years, Greece has it's shitloads of economic trouble up ahead (and i wouldn't be surpsised if it was the first country kicked out of the EU), i keep hearing about albanians trying to re-ignite kosovo and all those good stuff and china is just up ahead as an economic force, which means that the whole of EU has to deal with this, as a whole. The name is one of my lesser concerns, man :)

Hope i didn't offend ya :D Project2501a 11:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you brightened my day. Thanks! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:27, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo mediation

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

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

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

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

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

Refactored (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation&diff=next&oldid=15515860). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 23:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome

Edmund Ward Poor

I'm a bit concerned about this article - for one thing, it's inappropriate to write an article on your father, much like writing an article on yourself. For another, it's inappropriate to remove a speedy delete tag from an article you wrote. For a third, I'm finding some problems verifying the information - I can't find any Henry Poor at the University of Florida, and the article on the Grumman company doesn't mention your father at all. Snowspinner 02:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

1. not my father - my grandfather
2. I didn't remove the speedy delete tag - unless it was by mistake. I checked when I saw it disappear, but I'll check it again.
3. The article on Grumman Aircraft really ought to mention my grandfather. He was pretty well known in Long Island, before the Bethpage facility closed down.

But I won't oppose a deletion - if you think he's not notable. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oops! You're right; well, we are both right. I did deleted the speedy delete - because I had mistakenly put only the URL for the external link. Zscout restored the sd, but then took it out himself again. But he's still not my father, and still was Grumman's co-founder and treasurer. (Unless my parents brainwashed me ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I won't delete, since he seems encyclopedic, but you probably shouldn't add articles on family. :) Snowspinner 03:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

not even charles henry poor?

Interesting notable family tree you've got there Ed. I'm wondering, has anyone ever considered creating a genealogical wiki? Shouldn't require more than 10 billion entries or so  ;-). Seriously, though, a wiki style environment for collecting ordering all of the world's information on family histories could be very appealing. Though working through all the John Smith's of the world might pose some technical problems, and perhaps one would want to see some technical tools developed that expand on the inherent relationships in families. Anyway, just a thought. Dragons flight 19:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Terry

Aloha. Your template could cause a problem on talk pages, since anyone trying to edit a comment (without using the add a comment feature) might edit the template instead. In fact, this happened to me. :-) I added {{subst:terry}} instead. --Viriditas | Talk 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see you're playing around with it. Try to edit the {{terry}} section below this comment, as if you were going to post a reply or a new comment. You'll see what I mean. Heh. --Viriditas | Talk 11:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt.

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

Ed, hi,

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

I notified the arbcom. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Zen-master) Please continue to try to work this out - or just ignore the man. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

BYT RFA

hello Ed; I wish you could shed light on your nomination, with regard to your ongoing dispute with BYT. " He ought to have the ability to undo hasty page moves" obviously refers to your moves of the Quran desecration article, but I find it difficult to decide whether you genuinely admit that your moves were "hasty", and should have been undone, or if you're using tounge-in-cheek sarcasm against BYT. please clarify on the RFA page, thank you. regards dab (ᛏ) 08:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Hasty" means "too quick". Everyone but me says they were too quick. But what I forgot is that it is hard for non-admins to undo a page move. This gave me an "advantage" I didn't realize I had. I'd like to even things out, that's all.

I still think my page moves were right: the title should reflect the article scope. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

Didn't we agree not to edit Guantanamo articles until mediation was concluded? (I just sent you a response to yesterday's message.) Peace, BYT

Sorry, couldn't resist. I will revert my own change, upon request. It's up to you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

What if we leave this one in place and just hold off on future edits until we wrap this mediation up? We're very close. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 14:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, you are too generous. I just wanted the NPOV tag to remain - it didn't seem fair for the others to remove it behind my back: it gives the false appearance of consensus. The NPOV dispute will continue until all involved agree that it's over. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we just leave the page as it is right now, including Lee's edit taking off the tag. If you want to put it back after we wrap up mediation (which I'd like to do today if possible), let's address that together on the page itself. Fair? BrandonYusufToropov 14:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More than fair, since I did promise not to edit the page. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's requests

I appreciate the humor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sam_Spade/To_do_list_1&diff=0&oldid=15630709). Any chance of the mediation commitee stepping up to the plate, or will we have to wait for it to be overhauled? Sam Spade 15:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Yep, see WP:RfM#User:Cberlet_and_User:Sam_Spade and the "really need mediator" thread (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/thread.html). Cheers, Sam Spade 16:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Active Mediators are supposed to sign in here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Active). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

M Noticeboard

Does it have a link? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Use the "edit" link to right of - and slightly above - the section header. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have room on my plate for a mediation case. Pick one and send it to me. --Improv 19:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have time for one too. I dropped a note at Talk:Jesus - got no reply. Will follow up on that and one more. -SV|t 19:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good. I'll advertise that fact. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Just so we're clear ....

... the agreement we outlined concerning our process on Guantanamo-related edits/page moves is acceptable to you, yes?

(I feel sure that it is, but I want to be quite sure we are both agreeing to the same thing.) Personally, I think it's a good approach to take on all pages, and I reserve the right to suggest it to you at any point. :) But I don't consider pages outside of Guantanamo-related topics to be part of what we were in mediation about. Look forward to hearing from you soon. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 20:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we agreed that major changes would be discussed to our mutual agreement first.

Do you mind if I restore the NPOV tag?

Would you remind csloat that my pledge was to you (not him), and that you and I are back at gitmo now?

Fine. Major changes it is. I personally am cool with the NPOV tag, but I'm not the only person you've got to sell it to. Looking forward to workding with you. BrandonYusufToropov 22:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Block

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Policy enforcement

I have no issue with it. It improves transparency, this can only be a good thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policy enforcement

I'm not really happy with where Wikipedia:Policy enforcement appears to be going. Making pages for editing by admins only is very contrary to the wikipedia way of doing things. Please reconsider. --W(t) 01:55, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Not "very contrary". The Main page is protected. And since it's "no big deal" to become an admin, the only people who can't edit the policy enforcement page will be people who can't be trusted to follow the rules.

I don't want vandals and their ilk gaming the system at p.e. Anyway, the talk page is open. And when per-page blocking is created, that will let us fine tune things even better. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to contribute, but I am not (yet) an admin. For the time being, I recommend unlocking the page while we work out what that page is used for. Once this is "frozen" then lock it. On second thoughts, I never felt the need to lock WP:AN, and this is really primarily for admins. With an edit history, I don't feel that this page needs to be locked. Could I ask you to unlock the page? Apart from this, it gives those who fear admins more reason to believe that they are "above the law" and in their own special class, which should not be the case. I think I see why you locked it, but I don't think its helpful. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Policy enforcement. It is your voice most of all I want to hear; you know how much influence you have on me! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of friends

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

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

Enforcing no name-calling

Hi Ed, I thought I'd tell you that I don't think zen master should be given free reign to continue calling Rikurzen a nazi even after your warnings (see the race and intelligence talk page; Rikurzen has done model work on a complex article and doesn't deserve to be harassed.Best, Nectarflowed ^T 05:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for the avuncular support for my adminship. Coming from you it feels very official. It is an honor and a pleasure to be your personal copyeditor. However I don't think that I could keep up with your page moves until I have gone a few rounds with Willy on Wheels. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 09:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Hi Ed, do you want to discuss this on an instant messaging program?--Nectarflowed ^T 10:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Yes, public is better. Why don't we post the transcript here when we're done? The only difference is that it goes many times faster.

Here is good. Doesn't matter if admin or not: anyone with a good idea is welcome!

I made a mistake by telling one person it was okay to use the word nazi-esque. So I thought it better to start fresh. I have done countless numbers of these interventions, and with all due modesty, I'm just about the best there is. Shall we not work together on this? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 10:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I am not an admin. There is really not a problem with the discussion page of race and intelligence or the community involved on it. There is a problem with a single user, & the warning should go on his talk page. It should also be enforced. Many users have attempted to explain things to the user, but he has a unique understanding of things. I should note that the Wikipedia community overwhelmingly voted to keep the race and intelligence page in the recent VFD. The talk page was actively being used by the users working on the page. It's not appropriate to simply blank it. --Nectarflowed ^T 10:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er, blanking was not my intent - but archiving. Could you give me a little leeway with this? Just for a day or two? This topic is as hot as flowing lava. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 10:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I'm glad you're trying to help here :) But I have to say this topic is NOT hot. There are maybe 10 perfectly neutral users who regularly contribute to the R and I discussion page. Recently a single user has brought up his concerns. They have been addressed repeatedly by many users, but he has a unique understand. The discussion is still active. One eccentric user calling people nazis does not warrant archiving a page we are using to work on the article. Why don't you just start a new section with your concerns? --Nectarflowed ^T 10:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was asked to intervene, I did. Next personal remark by any party will take the user to Wikipedia:policy enforcement. You got a better idea, go for it.-- Uncle Ed (talk) 10:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

You got a better idea, go for it. I got a better idea: Ask the one fellow who has a beef for suggested improvements. Please note that I did this in talks; please let him have a chance to reply, and we can play it by ear from there. the only problem is a single user repeatedly violating wikipedia policy Maybe, but let's try my method for a moment, ok?"

There is only a problem with a single user. Intervene with that user if you want, but don't interfere with the normal functioning of the page :) I think we should change it back to how it was, and let the normal users manage their own page. Again, the only problem is a single user repeatedly violating wikipedia policy.--Nectarflowed ^T 11:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert the page to how it was, then add your contributions from there. It isn't fair to disrupt the activities of the normal users here. They're doing a model job on a difficult subject, and the drastic archiving makes it look like there is a big problem when there is just one eccentric user.--Nectarflowed ^T 11:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me add my voice to Nectar's. The talk page worked really well, and is used very actively by lots of hard-working people. Remove "Zenflower's section" if you want, but please don't just blank out the entire page. There was a todo-list, there was a discussion of summary style, there was a discussion of how the references should work. Links to the closed VfD, links to the peer review recommendations. You cannot just blank that out because a single user is disruptive. Arbor 11:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Revert the page to how it was, then..." Fine, but please make sure my questions to Zen Master remain. If he has a solution, we can hear it, and if not, you all can get on with your page.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I think a single disruptive user without any experience with science does not constitute an NPOV dispute. I thought intervention was requested because the user was calling people nazis. It could be helpful to review the last week of dialogue we've been having with him, trying to explain things to him. :) Look on his talk page, where he and I have been talking at length. Thanks! Nectarflowed ^T 11:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help me out here, please. This is not easy.

• I need someone to restore the "helpful" parts of the talk page
  • links to archives and vfd
  • summaries of style and reference

And bear with me on "contributor relations". There's a reason Jimbo appointed me to the Mediation Committee. I'm r-e-a-l-l-y good at mediation! Ask ambi, ask stevertigo. See the talk page, the restart seems to bearing fruit already.

Sheesh! Can't I have a day (one friggin day!) to try to resolve this? Let's see what Patrick has to say. He's the one who asked me to look into this. Be patient. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, Patrick's comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=15603903) was asking you to intervene with zen master calling everybody nazis. That is ALL he asked. The article is 100% under control, as is the talk page. You're going against the wishes of the users of the page, as well as the wishes of the user who asked you to intervene. --Nectarflowed ^T 11:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Darn right I'm going against their wishes. That's my job. When people disrupt Wikipedia by imposing their own agenda, responsible Wikipedians call on me to set things straight. You want to post on a blog, go find one. You want to form an online community, go join one. But if you want to help this community create an on-line encyclopedia, stop carping and start helping. Tasks await at Talk:Race_and_intelligence, if helping is what you came here for.

Ed, I tried to merge the old talk page with your mediation proposal. I basically removed "Zenflower-related" sections and put yours there instead. This may have been a bit heavy-handed in execution, but I hope you approve in principle. Otherwise please remove whatever other sections you want. Arbor 11:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't seen it but I appreciate the effort. (And try not to be so violent. I heard the sound of a *slap* in the room; was that you? ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, your job isn't to go against the wishes of responsible Wikipedians. Look at Patrick's request (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=15603903) again, and you'll see what you're doing has nothing to do with it. If you actually read the R and I talk page that you're changing around, you'd see we've all been very respectful of zen master's individual concern. You are creating a problem where there isn't one. Best, Nectarflowed ^T 11:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, I accidently included one of my personal comments to you in one my edits of the race and intelligence talk page. I see you took it out, thanks Nectarflowed ^T 12:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want my job you can have it. Ask the community to make you an admin. I don't hear anyone else complaining, and Patrick wouldn't have asked to "look" if he thought I would go against his wishes. If you want to help, help. Otherwise I wish you would butt out. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 12:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Message

E-mail for you, Ed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)