User talk:Ed Poor

Archives: 21

The irony of being called tendentious

Connolley

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)

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)

Cat out of the bag?

I think [1] is a bit of a give-away William M. Connolley 09:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Giving away what? That I only understand science when it's expressed in the form of theories which can be checked against facts? I'm not neutral about science vs. pseudoscience. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should be? If so, let's discuss it and come up with a new Wikipedia:Science policy. --Uncle Ed 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant, as to what you'd write when unconstrained William M. Connolley 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Citizendium link is to an unapproved draft. Larry Sanger called it one-sided and biased. Unlike Wikipedia, Citizendium puts writers under strict constraints, and drafts must be approved before being published. Feel free to log in and help develop the article.

If you have any scientific knowledge about global warming which runs counter to the "natural cycles" theory, I'm sure Citizendium would welcome it. Their founder is the co-author (or primary author?) of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you support neutrality in encyclopedia writing, you'll really enjoy working at Citizendium.

Biased drafts (such as mine) are stopped in their tracks! --Uncle Ed 12:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I found this much more face-meltingly awesome. It's like one of the sadder and more neglected Wikipedia talk pages, only now in article space. :) --Ashenai 11:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have any evidence that the UN's assessment group is objective, please give it. Or are there reasons other than objectivity that you'd like to give it "authority"?

My only concern is how theories match up with facts. If a theory implies a hypothesis which can be tested, and that hypothesis is contradicted by measurements of real-world phenomena, then IMHO that theory has been falsified. Of course, a strictly neutral encyclopedia would have to say that in some specific scientist's opinion the theory had been falsified, because neutrality means not taking a position. --Uncle Ed 12:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, but I feel obliged to tease you... when even Conservatopedia reverts you with rm silly anti-IPCC diatribe you really *must* be in trouble :-) William M. Connolley 08:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You have carte blanche to tease me any time you want, doc! ;-) --Uncle Ed 20:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your IPCC article was unfortunately stubbed, but we still have this to cherish... Raymond Arritt 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you guys sign up and make some improvements? --Uncle Ed 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We already have a reasonably good online encyclopedia. Why waste time on a third-rate project that does not even try to be unbiased? Is there any article on Conservapedia better than the corresponding Wikipedia entry?--Stephan Schulz 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I regard your refusal as a tacit admission that the anthropogenic global warming theory is pseudoscience. There's not even an article explaining what the theory *IS*, let alone showing evidence for it or explaining how it could be falsified.

If your argument in favor of AGW had any credibility, you wouldn't be changing the subject. True science works not be distracting people when they mount challenges, but by sharing evidence and inviting other scientists to replicate your work. --Uncle Ed 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fork?

Hello Ed Poor! I saw somewhere saying you work for the New World Encyclopedia. That one looks pretty decent. Just a question, when it's launched, who can edit there? Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been a year since I've done any work for them, but last I heard the plans were to allow schoolteachers and other qualified people to make volunteer contributions.

The project will be released next year. For now, there are only a few sample articles available. In my opinion, every one of them is better than its corresponding Wikipedia article; in some cases, substantially better. (I've copied some passages back, so this may reduce the difference in quality.) --Uncle Ed 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So, when it finally comes out, it will be another great competitor to Wikipedia after Citizendium's inception? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It won't compete in size, but in articles which are of "featured" quality. --Uncle Ed 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Eliot Spitzer

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Requests for comment/Eliot Spitzer, by Black Falcon, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Requests for comment/Eliot Spitzer fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

G6 (housekeeping). A RfC page that was mistakenly created without the "Wikipedia:" prefix. It has no incoming links except from three pages of cross-namespace redirects.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Requests for comment/Eliot Spitzer, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Requests for comment/Eliot Spitzer itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Convervapedia

Do you still work in Conservapedia? They now have many articles and may siphon editors from Wikipedia. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I still work there? I'm the #2 contributor! --Uncle Ed 00:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed, but conservatives favor the rich, and you are "Poor", seems a little contradictory :-) Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Understanding warm bias in the temperature record

I know you have an interest in global warming. As you may know, there are serious problems with the temperature record being biased by UHI or similar warming biases related to land use changes, etc. ClimateAudit.org is organizing an effort to photograph sites. Understanding the issue will help you be a better editor and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on AGW. If you are interested, you could be a part of the effort. Please take a look here. [2] RonCram 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words on my talk page. I am mulling over an example for scientific method which is not natural science-oriented to demonstrate that it is not restricted to the traditional topics in scientific method. One example which occurs to me is from economics. For example, the Chicago RTA is currently playing a game of 'chicken' with the state, to see who blinks first. I need to ask some urban planners their thoughts, but briefly my idea is to state the RTA mess right now, list some options for action based on the perceived policy for the City of Chicago, and come up with a prediction. It's not really original research because urban policy has to serve the inhabitants of the city. I do not think that would be disputed. Therefore the prediction ought to be that some state agency will provide a way to guarantee a bond which underwrites additional funds for transportation infrastructure in Chicago. The prediction does not have to answer when.

Sample:

• 1. Situation: RTA mess in Chicago. RTA to borrow 90 million from next years budget to keep services at current level.
• 2. Hypothesis: RTA funds infrastructure improvements aid productivity in Chicago (people on time for their jobs, etc.)
• 3. Prediction: If increase funding for RTA, then productivity increases in Chicago.
• 4. Test: Look for cut in funding, to stimulate political support for bond issue underwritten by Illinois.

Step 4 (at least the first part) was in yesterday's Chicago Tribune headline which I picked up today at the Tollway Oasis after visiting my daughters: "RTA digs itself into deeper hole". So all that is needed is the demonstration of political support, and I can add this to the article as a concrete example. The essential point is that no one knows the answer right now; it's a conundrum, hence suitable for scientific method. --Ancheta Wis 02:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the burning question which concerns materialists and their philosophical opponents is whether the scientific method (or indeed any aspect of science) can be applied to anything which is not strictly physical and/or deterministic. Economics involves decisions and choices by human beings. Are human beings completely determined by natural laws and physical forces? Is this a premise of science (or of physical science?)

Believers in God and the supernatural do, in some cases, value science. So how do science and religious "faith" relate? Must one bow to the other or be forced to take a back seat? How can they work together? --Uncle Ed 03:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

Was I blocked? I wonder what it was for ... --Uncle Ed 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Let me see what I can find out. There doesn't seem to be any reason in the block summary... WjBscribe 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you because the blocking admin did not give a reason for your block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found two autoblocks and lifted them so you should now be able to edit. Any idea what that was about? WjBscribe 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If I were a suspicious man, I would think it was retribution for blocking someone on another wiki. But since I'm not suspicious I assume it was a glitch caused by my IP skipping around on wi-fi.

Hey, how come wi-fi doesn't rhyme with wiki? :-) --Uncle Ed 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Probation

I just read your user page and saw you were on probation. Why don't you just create a new identity so you don't have this hanging around your neck? Traicao 05:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I should change. I did nothing wrong. Wikipedia must change, or decline. --Uncle Ed 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

True that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation of wikiproject

Just thought you would want to know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and Controversies has been created. It will take it awhile to get it running. Feel free to jump in and help out. Remember 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Birth date and age

Template:Birth date and age has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. _→AzaToth 22:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Project

Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Projecthas not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. _Jame§^ugrono 07:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent plea to the Neutrality Project

Thanks for your considerable comments left on our talk page. However, though your intentions seem noble, there are some issues, most of which are not entirely your fault.

1. Some of these articles are out of my depth &mash; I simply do not have the knowledge on them, or perhaps the patience to sift through hundreds of citations, in order to re-write them.
2. Some of these articles have been or currently are the subject of dispute resolution. The ones that have been usually remain unstable. We try to avoid these kinds of articles; we don't want to start or elevate anything! There are some cases where we will make changes, and these times come along when something is outrageously POV.
3. Our review team at the moment, is too small. I'm glad you've joined, as you could help to take some of the strain off of our resources. However, in order to deal with the issues, most of our member would need to be active, an unfortunately, not all of them are.

Again, sorry that we aren't able to deal with it immediately. However, since it's on the talk page, it would certainly be a long term goal of the project._Jame§^ugrono 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Age in Years, months, days

I see you've spearheaded some work on date/time templates. Is there a template which returns age in years, months AND days?
For example, if I entered {{ template | 2005 | 8 | 1 }} today, it would return "2 years, 4 months, 1 day."
Thanks. (Answer here, and I'll check back.)—Markles 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Politicization of science

(Moved from your user page) I did what I could. The article still needs a lot of work, in order to comply with WP:NPOV.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Politicization of science

Okay, that makes more sense. I do feel caught up in something other than the basic editing of an article, which isn't fun. I also think that the IP is trying to push his POV, which may have contributed to my assumption that he was wrong. It sounds like the biases are as ambiguous as any revert war, but I do feel like I wasted my time editing something that I didn't know wouldn't stand.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I led you to waste your time. I hate wasting my own time, too. I had high hopes that the article could be restructured so that historical examples (which both liberals and conservatives could agree on) would come first. Then we might wade slowly into modern examples, which might require showing two sides.

Everyone agrees on Galileo and Lysenko, I think. But other 20th examples are harder to characterize, because the disputes are still going on. What some people think are clear-cut "examples of politicization" by one side, seem to me to be examples of scientific controversy. Or maybe both sides are politicizing the issue.

Anyway, it's too deep for me. All I plan to do in the near future is suggest reviving Galileo and Lysenko - and push to have them be the first examples on account of their clarity and utter non-controversiality.

Or if you want me to butt out, maybe I should just stay away from the topic completely? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about it. Part of it was my mistake too. I'm just going to wait until after the article is unlocked and go from there, and incorporate my original revisions into a version that is more widely accepted.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But I am worried about it. It would be better for Ed to contribute to a less controversial article; his actions there over the last week or two was exactly the sort of behavior that prompted the probation he's apparently forgotten about. I'm getting a number of complaints about his editing and reversions there and tempers are running high because of it. Ed would be wise to disengage and not run the risk of making things worse by pressing his case. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ed!

Hi Ed, glad to see you're back on Wikipedia. Take a look, on my talk page, at my brief analysis of the current state of the anthropogenic global warming hysteria ... it's slowly (or perhaps rapidly) falling apart in the scientific world, even as it gains momentum in the political world. Once it collapses, it won't be much of a problem on Wikipedia any more. Courage. Vegasprof (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eco-coverbig02.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Eco-coverbig02.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Very nice

"I didn't realize you had a family member in hospital. I'm happy to withdraw the ANI and tickle you with a large wet trout instead. Peace? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Peace is good, Ed. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC) " Good job, Ed. It's nice to see that we can disagree but not hate. Seriously. I like stuff like that. On the other hand, I really like trout cooked Provençal style.  :)

Yeah, should I go over to ANI and "officially drop it"? How do I do that? Just say that it's no big deal and let's move on? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you just withdraw the complaint and that closes the issue. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

I have seen some of your work; and you seem like a respected level-headed editor of climate change related articles. I am a new editor, and have been subejct to lots of harassment and accusations of bad faith. This user in particular has been reverting my work with no care, and posting nasty threats on my user talk page. Any help or advice you can offer me will be quite appreciated. Regards, The Noosphere (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I'm respected in this climate ... perhaps you're thinking of when I was an admin and William C. was not? But nasty threats and careless reversions are no good. If I have time, I'll take a look. But as I am probation there's probably little I can do. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, he's since been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user (see here). So you needn't bother unless of course you're just interested in what's going on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I trust you. Our disagreements have not been about facts but about matters of interpretation and endorsement. I hate sock puppets even more than I hate biased writing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the end of R. fiend's RfArb case

Hi Ed, R. fiend has stated that he's voluntarily resigning as an admin, which pretty much short circuits the whole ArbCom case. I discussed this case with an Arbitration clerk, who stated since R. fiend officially apologized for the block and stated that his block of you was without merit or reason (pretty much), that one thing you could point to is if someone placed a one second block on your account stating User:R. fiend's block of User:Ed Poor was in error, and this block should not be held against User:Ed Poor's record. If that is an option, would you be ok with it? SirFozzie (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And, if you wanted such a note left, do you want someone in particular to leave it (such as a member of Arbcom)? Thatcher 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be best coming from a member of the arbcom. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Brad's current motion to dismiss, this will be done by an arbitrator - Alison ^❤ 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, the case did end up being short-circuited. (I'm surprised that the clerk did not notify you.) And an arbitrator will leave a such a note. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check my block log for it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that's happening :) There's a justice to that - Alison ^❤ 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just made the appropriate notation in the block log. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

For being the one and only Ed Poor, with a remarkable resiliency. Prodego ^talk 23:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

SA

Hi Ed, I undid your comment to ScienceApologist as you blanked his "essay". In case you hadn't noticed, he's been quite active today - so a bit premature to bid farewell methinks. You may re-add your comment, but please don't delete his content. Vsmith (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that was his content. And I'm glad he's not leaving. He and I may disagree sharply about how to apply NPOV, but he's still a good chap to have around. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William Opdyke

I have nominated William Opdyke, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Opdyke. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy. Ben (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy

I have nominated Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ben (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Day I met god book.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Day I met god book.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that I have successfully addressed the concern. Thank you, Mr. Robot! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

USB connector

As you mentioned on my RFA, that I do not understand WP:SUMMARY, I would have to agree then as it was my understanding that it was the long sections that were spun-off into new articles rather then the short ones as this would be generating unneeded stubs. I'll look over that guideline page more carefully. Q ^{T C} 12:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't be so confounded humble: maybe I'm the one who doesn't understand. Since Wikipedia is not paper, it's not an issue of length. My only concern is rapid understanding of article contents.

If a reader is directed to a section of USB, will they find the information they want that way? Or is it better for us to make the extra effort to maintain a WP:SUMMARY which contains quick-reference information? I know it's a lot of work to keep a child article in synch with its parent, but we're all here to serve the reader. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh, lets just blame it on Spiderman. Taking a step back I can see how separating it out might be better. But of course two people don't make a consensus :) Q ^{T C} 13:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Larry Moffitt

A tag has been placed on Larry Moffitt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Journalistic Fraud

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Journalistic Fraud, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Journalistic Fraud. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

archiving?

Ed have you thought about archiving your talk page?Balloonman (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing it now. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hyo Jin

Hi Ed,

Hyo Jin passed away earlier today in Korea. Initial reports are that his death was caused a heart attack. Someone without a logging in added this to his bio. Are you able to fill in the details? Robbyfrank (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to a church meeting this morning. I will report any additional details I learn, later today.--Uncle Ed (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Ed. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Unattributed POV

Template:Unattributed POV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Unattributed POV

Category:Unattributed POV, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Journalistic Fraud (2003 book)

An editor has nominated Journalistic Fraud (2003 book), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journalistic Fraud (2003 book) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think you put in your keep request on the wrong page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journalistic Fraud (2003 book) Put in your comments there. Arnabdas (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I didnt see your reply posted on the deletion nomination page. I asked that they not delete it until you can move it to your userspace. Maybe if the article gets better we can put it back in, but according to current policies and the way the article currently is, I have to agree about its deletion. Please move it to your userspace so you may work on it, make it better and then resubmit it on a future date. Arnabdas (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved it. Thanks for keeping me up to date. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Ed. Someone nominated Kevin Thompson (pastor) for deletion. You might want to check it out. To me its borderline by WP policies. I would just as soon see it kept so I can post a link to his book when that comes out, How to Survive in a United States Prison it might be titled. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi again Ed. I'm thinking of starting an article on the American UC. What do you think about that idea? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ed Poor

seeing as you were too much of a coward to respond to Welshman's queries on CP, but rather cowered behind a ban, he's going public with them. Are you man enough to step up and answer them? Psygremlin (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is for Wikipedia business only. You can contact me about other projects at the web sites which support them; try the "E-mail this user" link, if it's a wiki like this one. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't retire

I saw this [3] and a hoping it was a late April Fools joke. The project can't afford to keep losing great editors and I'm still waiting to hear your talk at the meetup about the good ol' days when we have to type up the articles and mail them via courier pigeon and what not! MBisanz ^talk 09:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but being on probation for "tendentious" editing makes it hard for me to do what I like best: compensating for the bias of controversial articles by presenting information about the minority viewpoint. Although the arbcom says that such information should not be removed, in practice (1) people remove it as if inserting it was a violation of NPOV and (2) I've been specifically banned from even editing or commenting on the intelligent design page, which is one of the 3 most biased articles here.

When the project was small, I could help it with its stated goal of maintaining a neutral POV. Look at the history of the ID article, the way I started it was neither pro nor con. Isn't this the definition of WP:NPOV?

The masses don't want neutrality. They don't want to expose readers to the marketplace of ideas. Liberal orthodoxy on ID, evolution, global warming, Communist genocide (a red link at this writing) - is that there is only one true POV and that liberals have it. They won't allow any opposing POV. They say that "balance is bias", or some claptrap like that.

What ever happened to science and history? Why is only one POV allowed to prevail unchallenged, while anyone pointing to the existence of alternate POV is demonized and hounded out?

I think I'll go watch Expelled. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you give little for me to disagree with. I went to ID and the first line "Intelligent design is the assertion" made me immediately question it. And the fact it has 21 citations in the LEAD and its still an FA. And yea, not being able to edit in your favorite field cant feel good. I have enough non-controversial interests that I suspect I'm some years away from being in your position. Of course, I still do hope you'd stay, even if the social sciences are a bad taste of your palate, there are so many other articles you could help create and expand and contribute to. Hoping this is just a wikibreak. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is "liberal orthodoxy" when it comes to Communist genocide? Our articles on the Red Terror, the Great Purge, and the Holodomor, for example, hardly seem to whitewash the enormity of what went on. Attempts to minimize those events on Wikipedia usually come from nationalists, not from Western liberals.

The marketplace of ideas is an interesting metaphor. As with any free-market-based concept, a marketplace of ideas presumes a level playing field and a prohibition on deceptive practices. Yet things like the wedge strategy, Teach the Controversy, rampant astroturfing, the generation of manufactured controversy, oil- and tobacco-industry-funded attempts to obscure scientific findings harmful to their business interests... all of these are explicit attempts to slant the playing field, and seem to bespeak a lack of faith in the marketplace of ideas, except as a useful sound bite.

By the way, feel free to remove this if you'd like - I was just moved to put my 2 cents in. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe things have improved, but the arbcom used the specific example of my pointing out that some historians accused Mao of mass murder as not being a neutral edit but a "tendentious" one. And your examples are all things that liberal accuse conservatives of. You didn't balance it with the things conservative accuse liberals of.

Anyway, I'm not sure WP wants to be a marketplace of ideas or a level playing field. But if you'd like me to start posting regularly again, perhaps you'll sponsor my return, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Weapons of mouse destruction

I have nominated Weapons of mouse destruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. RichardΩ612 17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if it's tied to RFD for Weapons of math instruction, too! ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

Hello Ed Poor!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello Ed Poor! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - Tinucherian (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Getting Started General • Task for You Wikiproject Talk Page • Templates Useful Links Project Category List of Christian Topics Christianity Portal Miscellaneous Featured Articles • Good Articles Did You Know? • Work Groups Anabaptist • Core Topics • Indian Christianity Iglesia ni Cristo • Jesus • Syriac Christianity Projects Article Requests • Destubbing Campaign Assessment • Articles Needing Clean-up Peer Review • Adopted Topics Similar WikiProjects Anglicanism • Bible • Calvinism Roman Catholicism • Lutheranism

We are indeed very happy to have such a veteran wikipedian like you in our project. Special welcome from Outreach dept - Tinucherian (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples templates for holiday dates. /next_few

Dear Uncle Ed, I made an edit to one of your templates and would like your opinion on the matter. Please see Mother's_Day_(United_States) and Template:Second Sunday in May/next few plus their associated discussion pages. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kenneth Gordon Neufeld

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kenneth Gordon Neufeld, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Gordon Neufeld. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

What's up man?

We could use you back on here. Stop messing with conservapedia, the more important work is here. Looking forward to having you around again. Saksjn (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I just nominated an article you started, Seoul Peace Declaration, for deletion. Borock (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Politicization of science‎

Hi there. I noticed you have contributed to politicization of science article, when you have time could you drop by to the Talk page to see my proposal for a NPOV leading paragraph and contribute to that discussion. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Object consciousness

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Object consciousness, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Exucmember (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sovereignty of the United Nations

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sovereignty of the United Nations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereignty of the United Nations. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ecoleetage (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My speedy deletion: Larry Moffitt

Hello Ed Poor. Moosato nominated me for speedy deletion. I imagine if he weren't non grata himself on Wiki, I would have been speedily deleted. I am not famous, except to the people who have bought my book of true life adventures. (I have a cult following. Really.)

I just found the article about me tonight during a self-Google. Don't know who posted it, but they were using yesterday's information. I corrected the piece, partly to see how well I have learned the Wiki editing notation. Not very well it turns out because I can't seem to make it link to websites. rgds, Larry Moffitt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.196.117 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Evolution and the Unification Church

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Evolution and the Unification Church, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi Ed. I am starting a new article: User:Steve Dufour/The Unification Church of the United States. Please take a look at it and make any changes or additions that you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Journalistic Fraud (2003 book)

Hi Ed, is User:Ed Poor/Journalistic Fraud (2003 book), correct? It seems the page name needs edited.Hughey (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jerusalem Declaration

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jerusalem Declaration, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ICUS article

International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences is being challenged as non-notable. I am having trouble finding sources which discuss it. I guess most of the press coverage was before the Internet. Thanks if you can help out. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve, you don't have to prove that a church-related topic deserves an article of its own. Just merge it into Unification Church or Sun Myung Moon, etc. And leave behind a redirect. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Global warming controversy

I have nominated Global warming controversy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming controversy (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Serviam (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Philosophy of peace

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Philosophy of peace, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nine Nines Day

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nine Nines Day, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Exucmember (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paragon House

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Paragon House, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cheongshim Graduate School of Theology

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cheongshim Graduate School of Theology, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Summit of World Leaders

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Summit of World Leaders, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Clouds of Witnesses

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Clouds of Witnesses, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Unification Church articles

I've just nominated several Unification Church related articles for deletion: Michael Jenkins (Unification Church), Andrew Wilson (theologian)‎, Robert Parry, Tyler Hendricks‎, and True Children.Northwestgnome (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the important parts of these articles be merged into the Unification Church article - rather than eliminating these topics altogether. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Spirit man

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Spirit man, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Ed. I've just nominated Belvedere Estate (New York) for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Family Pledge

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Family Pledge, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ahn Shi Il

I have nominated Ahn Shi Il, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahn Shi Il. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008

This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Successor of Sun Myung Moon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Successor of Sun Myung Moon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Successor of Sun Myung Moon. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Northwestgnome (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Dildo Museum"

A page you created, Dildo Museum, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is vandalism.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Mattie^TK 11:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm being chided for vandalism, 4 years after the fact? <big chuckle> In the old days, I'll have you know, jokes such as mine were more widely appreciated. I find the modern era's grimness and often bias awfully disheartening.

But go ahead and deleted that redirect, with my blessings. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I miss those times. Kingturtle (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Me, too. In fact, I must now be careful to TELL you that I have borrowed a few of your userboxes. What used to be shared is now hoarded. Is knowledge power? It certainly isn't money, not for someone with a name like mine. <grin> --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Likely, this is some misguided 13 year old who uses huggle too much. I noticed that you are being template spammed, too. Ugh! Have these new editors no respect for one of the original Wikipedia 200? --Dragon695 (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Are you the same Ed Poor from Conservapedia? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

They asked me that there. Actually, I'm the Ed Poor whose dad is the grandson of astronomer Charles Lane Poor and Grumman cofounder Ed Poor. There aren't two of me.

But, yes, if being a Conservapedia sysop is a crime, you'd have enough evidence to convict me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a crime in reality just yet but I'll e-mail you when it is so you have time to exile ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bad move

Nothing to be sorry about, perhaps there will be a consensus to support your move. But I believe that the RMP is such an estabilished name - and moves of that article in the past were somewhat controversial (Hitler-Stalin alliance issue), that it needs to be discussed before being boldly moved.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Answer all the questions within the RfA and then we'll publish the RfA. Kingturtle (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I like this nom! MBisanz ^talk 18:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you're ready for me to put the RfA live. Kingturtle (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just finished, thanks. Let the healing begin! --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you're ready? Kingturtle (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ready. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The reaction wasn't negative at all. I was just quite surprised in a positive way. Even if it doesn't pass, I still think it's a step in the right direction. bibliomaniac15 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew a lot of people would oppose. Once you lose trust, it's hard to regain it. Whichever way it goes, I'll be under greater scrutiny in the future, which is probably a good thing. To be public minded, one must be accountable to the community at large. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you are running RFA again...Best of luck... -- Tinu Cherian - 07:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I believe there is sufficient consensus against you. Would you like to consider withdrawing your RfA? NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

I'm quite incensed right now so I'm going to have to calm down whilst I write this... You removed a comment made by User:Wisdom89 on Aschfly's Conservapedia talk page here, citing that it was "uncivil". 5 days ago you received comments from another user and Wisdom here asking how you perceived Wisdom's comment as "uncivil". I've already noted this on your RfA but I'd just like to tell you personally: Anyone who confuses perfectly valid and civil comments anywhere on the Internet with "uncivil" ones really won't have a clue how our own WP:CIVIL policy works here at Wikipedia. You never replied to those concerns on your talk page and you never explained yourself clearer beyond the edit summary. Despite CP and WP being totally different realms, it's still a reflection on your person. And to be clear: It's not a good reflection. This is why I cannot support your RfA. The chances of you abusing the tools are just too great. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you unblock wisdom89's CP account that was blocked for his expression of free speech?--AnonCPeditor (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Free speech is as irrelevant there as it is here, I imagine. You have no 'right to free speech' on a private forum. And anyway, if you want to contest a CP block, do it there. Avruch ^T 12:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood me, perhaps not. I was only trying to say that Wisdom89 opposed and was promptly infinitely banned at CP for doing so. This means of course that I cannot vote oppose because I too will be banned, as will any other people who edit both CP and WP. I was hoping for a gesture of goodwill from Ed that he would not endorse this rather draconian approach to administration.--AnonCPeditor (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Our WP:CIVIL policy reflects what our community believes to be civil and not civil, not what the whole world believes or ought to believe. Civility is a community standard, and Conservapedia's standards have nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever. The best place to argue about something that happened on Conservapedia is there - its irrelevant to Wikipedia, and is nonsensical anyway divorced from the context of its community. I assume that Ed has some ability to compartmentalize his conduct between projects. Its unfortunate that Ed Poor's RfA has become a referendum not on Ed but on Conservapedia - obviously, since Conservapedia exists, its members and their philosophy has not found much purchase here on Wikipedia. Its a given, then, that if people decide that they need to evaluate Conservapedia for adminship a fail is inevitable. I might have opposed Ed myself, for other reasons, but given the devolvement of the RfA (canvassing, half the opposers not even considering his actions on-wiki in the last two years, etc.) I don't think I'll vote either way. Avruch ^T 12:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My wording evaded the above observation, Avruch: "Anyone who confuses perfectly valid and civil comments anywhere on the Internet with "uncivil" ones really won't have a clue how our own WP:CIVIL policy works here at Wikipedia" - is what I wrote. "Uncivil" is a universal word and Poor seems to have misinterpreted it. But, never mind, thank you for your reply, Avruch. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, maybe I wasn't clear - uncivil is a word used everywhere people speak English, but it means vastly different things to different people - and what constitutes rude and impolite behavior is something that is determined by local community norms. I think its unfair to judge the behavior of an individual in one community, with one set of norms, based on the prevailing views of a completely separate community with a very different mission and very different sorts of members. Avruch ^T 13:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I plan to move this to User talk:Ed Poor/Conservapedia soon. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA was unsuccessful

Ed, I am sorry to say that I have withdrawn your RfA. The result has become something of an inevitability and I don't think there's any point in keeping open a process that is causing you stress when it is generating little, if any, light and is unlikely to have a favourable outcome. I hope you will not be too disheartened and will take on board the very positive comments that were made about you, including by many of those opposing. The fact that the community is not at present willing to support your regaining sysop tools should not be taken to mean that your contributions to this project have not been appreciated - I thing there is a strong indication in that discussion that they have been. I offer my warmest wishes, WJBscribe (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on your RfA (it closed before I could mention this directly on it). If you apply or get nominated again, and can make a clear, compelling, and direct case that your work on both Wikipedia and Conservapedia doesn't present a serious WP:COI, I would consider supporting. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just ran across your RfA, right after it was over. This is the first RfA I've seen, and I don't know whether I could have contributed, but I certainly think you ought to have admin privileges, and would support you in the future if I could be of any help. Your contribution to Wikipedia is massive and undeniably positive. -Exucmember (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am saddened by this outcome. I have to say that it is times like this that make me ashamed to be a devout liberal. Sometimes I wonder if what you and the others say is true, that we've become so intolerant of dissenting viewpoints? I still stand by my words, someone has to clean up the riff-raff that are WP:OWNing some of our intelligent design articles. The level of abuse by those I would normally side with is completely out of control. Oh well, here's hoping for better days ahead. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I spoke to an educator about that yesterday. He was stunned to find out that some people are so threatened by the mere existence of an opposing viewpoint. My early attraction to Wikipedia was the prospect that it could describe controversies by outlining all significant views. It remains a puzzle to me, why so many Wikipedians want to remove "information which advances a viewpoint" from articles on controversial topics; I thought the arbcom had specifically said that should not occur.

• "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view." [4]

• See also User_talk:Ed_Poor/POV_pushing --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's quite an intriguing observation - would this "educator" happen to be Andrew Schlafly, along with whom you stamp heavily upon all traces of the "opposing viewpoints", never mind acknowledging their "mere existence"? Isn't it your - and this "educator's" - modus operandi to delete any and all opposing viewpoints, block those people who express, no matter how civilly or carefully expressed, opposing viewpoints, and publicly ridicule and verbally abuse such proponent's of opposing viewpoints? Hypocrisy seemingly knows no bounds. Glad to hear your RfA was laughed out of the building, by the way. Couldn't have happened to a ... *cough* nicer chap. Jakey Pike (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

-- Tinu Cherian - has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
... I hope you will not be too disheartened by the outcome of your recent RFA...Best wishes for the future... Thanking you for your contributions to Wikipedia -- Tinu Cherian - 13:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Could you help fill in some things?

Hi Ed. I circuitously found you through WT:RFA, just as I was working on a Wikiversity project which could use someone who was "there near the beginning" of Wikipedia. The project is Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia, started a week and a half ago by some very disgruntled Wikipedians. While I'm not exactly on their side (quite the opposite in at least two respects), I have been working with them to prevent wars (of both the flame and edit variety), and have found quite a bit of it interesting food for thought.

If you have time, I'd really like to get some first-hand accounts of how Wikipedia was "managed" early on, before the development of the current system of policies and other structures. I've been with Wikiversity since it's beginning, but while I know at least some of our policies and other structures were designed to avoid some of the entrenched problems of Wikipedia (for a good example, compare WP:RFA to WV:RFC, but honestly I don't know how the problems came about. "OR" is permitted on WV, so we don't need you to write a billion footnotes: just relating your impressions and experiences would be fine. I threw together an outline this morning, at least lining out some of what I personally would like to learn about :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I established an account there, in response to this message. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Responsibility

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Responsibility, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Wikipedia:Responsibility|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rtphokie (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Entities which received funding from the Unification Church

I nominated "Category:Entities which received funding from the Unification Church" a couple hours ago for deletion. Already someone restored the 3 articles which were in the category and made suggestions for what to do with them. You might want to have a look and make recommendations. -Exucmember (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Deniers

Hi there. This is to inform you that I did a partial rv of your last edit, because the issue you raised was being discussed and I had asked for a hold until this weekend. In order to keep NPOV, I temporarily divided that section and change the heading (that's why I called it partial, you are right about not belonging to scientific criticism). Please go to the Talk Page and see further details. Feel free to change the heading for other more NPOV or even the text regarding the complaint about pejorative labeling, it is temporary, and it might even be deleted after the hold if I do not present a better RS. My apologies. Mariordo (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Returning resurrection

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Returning resurrection, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Communism:Promise and Practice

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Communism:Promise and Practice, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Subject and object (Divine Principle)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Subject and object (Divine Principle), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First registered Wikipedian

Hi there Ed, wondering whether you can answer me some trivia since you've been on the pedia for so long, virtually from the beginning. Who is the first registered Wikipedian on wikipedia? I think most people would think it would be Jimbo but he was the 24th Can you please answer my query? Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 01:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Try Lee Daniel Crocker (real name) or The Cunctator. Magnus, the Epopt, or Eloquence might know better than I do. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kashyyyk

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kashyyyk, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kashyyyk

I have nominated Kashyyyk, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashyyyk. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Frank Kaufmann

An article that you have been involved in editing, Frank Kaufmann, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Kaufmann. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear Ed Poor...If you are still interested in participating in WikiProject Media franchises, please remove your name from the inactive participants list and add it to the active participants list. If you don't have time, but would still like to show some support, you can always add yourself to the sympathizers list. It would be wonderful to see you in the project. Have a nice day! - LA (T) 19:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

US offshore drilling debate

With reference to our debate on Talk:Offshore drilling. There's now a page on the issue, called US offshore drilling debate. Thought you might be interested :-) EverGreg (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dan Fefferman

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dan Fefferman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Help for template age

Hello, Ed poor. Could you kindly help us to change the date format of Template:Age into Swahili Wikipedia to local formart? What I meant is to change date circulation. It has to start from: 27 Machi, 1982. But now is 27 Machi which is not good for local date. I allow you to go into that template and sort it out. Please help us to chage it into local date. You can see I use that template for sw:Template:Msanii muziki 2.--Muddyb Blast Producer (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD's

I've just nominated American Freedom Coalition and World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What for? It would be better to merge them into Unification Movement or some related page. Isn't there a List of Unification Church-related organizations somewhere, Steve? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

(: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Hey Ed, Hope this finds you well. How does someone successfully navigate the OTRS? Is special permission needed? A project with which you are familiar has come across this tag, as seen under this image, used with increasing frequency on Wikimedia Commons' images. Understanding and knowing how to give proper crediting and exhibiting permission from OTRS is of utmost importance. Thank you, Robbyfrank (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)