An article that you have been involved in editing, Booky's Crush, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booky's Crush. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CosmicJake (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Wikipedia is that so many details are incorrect, and left uncorrected for - well, basically forever unless someone comes along to correct them. We need a system of fact-checking. It can't just be, "Anyone can edit any article anytime." That makes the default "No one says it's wrong." Which is not good enough.

We need to change to a system where no edit is exposed to the public until enough other writers or editors have checked it and have affirmed that it is correct. Contrary to the longstanding objections to this idea, it will actually improve both our editorial freedom and our article quality.

We have lost a ton of writers who have given up because it's so hard to maintain article quality when good edits can be reverted and bad edits inserted more easily than the other way around. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Democratically elected, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratically elected. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Soman (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Korean Cuisine. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Sorry, while I was away someone deleted it. :-( --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. I think though the topic should better be dealt with at Peer review. After all "Independent review" is actually just a synonym for peer review and I don't see how we could maintain a separate article. De728631 (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

At some point the articles could be merged, but we need some way to distinguish between anonymous peer review and other ways the members of the scientific community check each other's work.

There's also the issue of the (claimed) breakdown of the system of pre-publication peer review.

Anyway, I won't oppose a merge vigorously, as long as there's a good redirect. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No prob. And I apologize if my edit summary seemed a bit more rude than it should've been. Reviewing it just now, I think I should've phrased it better.

So how is everything? Everything going well with the church? I've haven't been a regular attendee to the Meetups in about two years due to problems getting into the city (though I did attend the meeting back in May), but haven't seen you at any since that first picnic at which we met in August 2007. Anyway, have a great summer. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ed, you've added a link to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article which goes to Independent review, but that article's not actually relevant to the kind of independent review arranged for the Climatic Research Unit issues. Are you thinking of making major revisions so that independent review becomes relevant and is no longer a fork of peer review? If not, can you undo your linking edit? . . .dave souza, talk 14:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up, because I wasn't sure it was the same kind of independent review. Can you explain the difference? (I had thought that the sources I've been reading were talking about independent review as a check against bias, including ideological bias. If I've misread a source or left out an essential reference, please correct me.)

I think, based on the number of references to the concept of independent review I've been able to find in just an hour or so of Googling, that it is relevant to Wikipedia. Whether it's relevant to accusations that CRU engaged in misconduct is an editorial judgment. I won't edit war with you, if you choose to remove the link without further discussion.

I don't see how the Independent review article I've started is a "fork" of Peer review, at least not in the sense of violating NPOV guidelines. I believe it is within the rules to start a new page about something, even if it is destined to become a section of a larger article. There is already a consensus of 4 editors (see talk:peer review) that Independent review should be merged into Peer review. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Until your article is on the right lines, the link is irrelevant to the CRU article and you should revert it. The phrase may be UK specific, but doesn't relate to scientific peer review. . . dave souza, talk 15:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly won't object if you choose to revert it with no further explanation. But I've asked in 2 or 3 places for an explanation, only to get a repeated assertion of irrelevance. Or have you already replied elsewhere? Sorry if I missed your answer. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks. That's very nice of you. Nightscream (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Mel Gibson DUI incident, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident (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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? That's a red link. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident (3nd nomination). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, looking at that page you clearly found it. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes I don't wait for the answer but just go a-huntin'. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside for those who are reading this discussion and confused, the reason the 2nd nomination is a red link is it's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident/(2nd nomination) i.e. uses a different format/name with the backslash instead of space. In fact the 3rd nomination was accidentally filed as the 2nd at first so I'm guessing the above was correct at the time Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Edward C. Banfield published a book in 1968 that made a simple and well-documented cast that the problems played out in ghetto neighborhoods

Do you mean case? Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I forget whether that was a typo, or a "copy and paste" problem. If the latter, do we add sic to the wrongly spelled word, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's your user page so you decide :-P Anyway looking more closely, you linked to the source which does have 'cast' so a sic would probably be in order if you want people to know it wasn't you. Looking even more closely, you can email the writer [1] and if he fixes it you can avoid the whole issue of whether to bother to add a sic :-) BTW if we were unable to check the source, you probably should have either changed it to case or let it be, since adding a 'sic' arguably has BLP issues if the writer is alive (I'm only semi joking). Nil Einne (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking more closely, it's not clear if the author wrote that himself or his simply quoting the source. I think it's the later since otherwise most of the essay is just a bunch of quotes, and the source is simply the reference he's using. Nil Einne (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You may or may not have noted [2]. But attempting new discussions on Cl Ch right now might be viewed as provocative William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is that why Dave met me here, instead of there, when he wanted to discuss reverting my link to Independent review? Well, I'm not afraid of "provoking" my fellow contributors. Those who know me, know that all I want is a well written and impartial article. Who could be bothered by that? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you like me feel a right to assume that wiki will be essentially sane at all times. And look what happened to the both of us :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Cirt and I has just started a discussion on the talk page about removing some of the extra examples and trivia from the page. Please join in if you care to. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to, if all parties concerned agree that my participation won't result in a WP:COI complaint. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to peruse the archives on this subject and use the talk page to express your concerns. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed, please don't jump into highly controversial articles and do stuff like this [3]. Monckton is not a reliable source for anything other than his own opinion; and manifestly his personal opinion is of no interest in this case, other than to him William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc, I think you have a conflict of interest, so I'm going to disregard your advice. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Dc crime.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I created the file myself, based on statistic I found here. If you'll look at the Wikipedia page for this image, in the lower right hand corner, you'll see this message;

• homicide in Washington, D.C., 1960-2005 based on statistics at http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

So what's the problem? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ed. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed Poor, I got your name from the Editorial Team participant list, and wanted to tell you that we will be testing out assessment metrics in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Nukespeak, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nukespeak until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Not yet :P [4] NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010 This box: view • talk •

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I'm somewhat disappointed by several of your recent edits on climate change articles - they seem pointy, and sometimes pointless to me. You have been here long enough to know that this, pure opinion without a single source, is not acceptable. The whole area has just been through the ArbCom wringer. One of the results has been the imposition of Discretionary_sanctions. Please be careful and discuss edits that are possibly contentious on talk. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cluing me in; I had not paid any attention to the Arbcom "wringer". I will avoid making any further climate-related edits until I've studied the Discretionary_sanctions. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Climate change if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Final decision. Specially, I was not impressed with the way you chose to wait till the end of the Arbitration case to begin making edits you know to be controversial. NW (Talk) 17:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for this indiscretion, and as I mentioned to Stephen above, I intend to avoid this area until I understand what the committee deem to be appropriate behavior. Although I felt that I was only indicated or describing a point of view (which I think NPOV encourages), clearly my edits are not impressing anyone as being unbiased or in compliance with WP goals.

I don't think a block is necessary at this time, as I intend to pull back and think about what is required of me before getting into climate again. I appreciate the warning, and I hope when I've had a chance to study it all, I can consult you before I contemplate any additional edits in this area. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"This New York driver is holding two cellphones at once, violating a state law."

Seriously, if holding even one cellphone while in charge of any vehicle is legal, then there is a problem with the law. He might as well be juggling hand grenades. The law says a maximum of one? Dumb law. --TS 22:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I took that photo in my own car, with my friend driving. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Horrors!

I once walked down one of those narrow side streets in the City of London, the financial district where the old walled city used to be, and encountered a very busy-looking lady in a car. She was trying to turn the car round in this narrow street while simultaneously talking on a cellphone. I don't think she even noticed me. I kept my distance until she had completed the maneuver, which took several minutes owing to the difficulty of operating the manual gear shift, the clutch, the brake and the accelerator, and the steering wheel while holding a mobile phone and trying to keep up a conversation.

She was as mad as a hatter. --TS 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Heteroflexible, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heteroflexible until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I recently read the book Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, which I recommend if you're interested in the question of whether there are innate psychological differences between the genders. I learned from that book that there are some physiological differences in the brain, but they're slight and the significance of them and whether they actually contribute to any psychological differences at all is totally unknown, because we don't understand the brain well enough and it's difficult to know how much it is affected by environmental factors.

I'd like to add a lot of the studies and information I learned about from this book into the articles on Wikipedia, but the subject is all kind of spread out in different articles. I worked on Biology of gender#Brain. Also there is Gender role#Biology, Sex-related differences in spatial cognition, sex and intelligence, Genetics of gender and Sexual dimorphism. Also, Testosterone is related to this issue. And there are probably more. --Aronoel (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that book has already examined the question of whether there are innate differences between men and women and decided that there aren't. I suppose the basis for this conclusion is (A) the assumption that biology is all there is, since nothing supernatural is possible, or capable of being studied (see Methodological naturalism) and that (B) since environment is the only other cause worthy of consideration, that must be the place to look.

However, this doesn't seem scientific to me. We only attribute causation to genetic or "other" causes after ruling out the factors we've studied.

So, it sounds like the answer we should be putting into WP article is, "We don't know." Unless you or I stumble upon some research indicating significant innate differences. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should definitely be "we don't know," though it's still useful to include information about the studies and experiments that have been done, even if they haven't come to any definitive conclusions. --Aronoel (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The two different viewpoints are (1) that there are no innate differences and (2) that there are innate differences. I'd like to see both viewpoints included in the series of articles you plan to edit. Using a source with the word "Delusions" in its title is good for presenting the first POV, but let's make sure not to assume that this is the only viewpoint, or that we should give it primacy because it's "scientific" or anything like that. NPOV policy requires us to describe all viewpoints fairly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fairly, but nowhere near with equal weight. An important distinction. When we talk about sex differences on Wikipedia, we are talking about science, not religion nor the supernatural. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there's still some debate among scientists as to whether science necessarily excludes religion and the supernatural.

• “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.” - Stephen Hawking [5]

It's not official policy at Wikipedia to assert that the supernatural is non-existent or otherwise incapable of being studied, is it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A template you created, Template:Newbie, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bsherr (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Edge motion, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edge motion until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I request that you voluntarily stop editing climate change articles for the time being. The fact that you plagiarized Wegman's report and then reported astonishment about the self-same plagiarism at ice cores makes me very concerned. Your article talkpage argument that this somehow justifies your hope to include more climate skeptics in science articles is all the more concerning because of this.

Relevant diffs:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry that I forget I was the one who copied that public domain quote from the Wegman report. My "astonishment" should have been about my own poor memory.

At least I remembered to credit the source then, because (as you hinted) plagiarism can rely hurt this project.

But I don't want to include more climate skeptics in science articles. I'm only asking how much climate skepticism we need, in light of WP:NPOV, so that the mainstream views on global warming are shown in proper contrast to the minority views. I wouldn't want anything unscientific to be added to a science article, but rather a dissenting scientific view if it's in accordance with our project policy.

For example, if even one scientist published results which contradict the mainstream, and enough other scientists felt that his evidence and arguments merited study, would it be okay to include these? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you should make sure that you understand precisely what plagiarism means. 50% of American graduate students haven't go a clue and think it's acceptable to incorporate a sentence almost literally into their text so long as they add a citation to the source.[9] 4 years ago you made that mistake with an entire paragraph, and it's not clear from your above response that you now understand it was wrong. There are some good explanations at WP:Plagiarism, and many universities also have helpful documents on the topic, precisely because their students find it so counterintuitive. Hans Adler 22:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but why do you think the Wegman report is in the public domain? It may very well be, but there is no obvious reason for this assumption. In particular, it's not been created by the US government or government employees in their official capacity. Unless it has been explicitly released into the public domain, the copyright is with the authors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those clarifications. You are saying that Wikipedia policy and/or the free license concept, as applied to collaborative writing, does not permit incorporating public domain text. It must be quoted. Do I understand you correctly, Hans?

And Stephen, you are right about my assumption that the Wegman report was in the public domain. I did not check. I assumed that since it was a product of the US government, but I failed to check this.

Good catches all around, and I've really learned something today that will help me be a better WP contributor. Thanks, guys! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries (well, no new worries ;-). Just to clarify: We do agree now that the report is not a product of the US government, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, I agree to trust it to be whatever you've already found it to be. It's not facts we've ever disagree on, you realize. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. From the POV of our licence incorporating text that is really public domain (that text probably wasn't) would be fine. But doing it in a way that doesn't make it obvious that it's copied literally and maybe superficially rephrased still makes it plagiarism, which is much less critical than a copyvio but still not allowed. Hans Adler 15:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Hans. This means that my use of a quote from the Wegman report - which I summarized as from public domain [[Wegman report]) - was not plagiarism, because I did make it clear that I copied it literally. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. If that's the diff that I remember (I don't want to hunt down the Wegman report again to compare the text and see if that's the diff that lifts entire paragraphs from it without quotation marks), then it's definitely plagiarism in addition to the copyvio. A reasonable reader seeing that passage would think that you have written it on your own and the reference is for a document part of which you summarised or at least put in your own words. Readers cannot be expected to guess that you copied literally if you don't say so. If the document were a work of the US government and you wanted to copy part of it literally into the article, you would have had to use a template such as Template:US government or equivalent text. Hans Adler 16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my! You're saying that the Edit summary from public domain [[Wegman report] and the link were insufficient.

So the next time I will use quotation marks, or a quotation template, or something like that. Are we on the same page now? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. Since it didn't seem clear to you, I reiterate that you should read a bit about plagiarism. Obviously Wikipedia is a bit more tolerant in that respect than academia, but still not as much as most people believe, and as I said in the beginning most students aren't even aware when they plagiarise because they don't understand the concept. But I am glad everything seems to be cleared up now. If you remember any specific other cases in the past it would be nice if you could fix them, but so long as there are no further copyvios it's not a big deal at all. Hans Adler 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted your edits on the above page. I've said why on the talk page. Please feel free to respond, but please put all comments on the talk page so they're gathered together and available to all. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Starrquacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay to delete, Thanks, Ham. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor has claimed that you are among communists "freely roaming in wikipedia to disseminate their studies unchecked". You may comment here. TFD (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just suggested merging True Family into List of Unification Church members since the information in the first is mostly aready in the second. Please discuss if you like: Talk:List of Unification Church members#Merge in True Family. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate being asked for input, but I got zapped with a prohibition against editing or commenting on UC-related articles, due to some idea that I have a WP:COI.

Ironically, in the old days I was considered a model of neutrality, even on my own church, and my fellow contributors were begging me to write more about my church's teachings and so forth. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ed_Poor. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for acknowledging you are under a topic ban from Unification Church related articles and talk pages at 2020, and yet flagrantly violating it a mere 3 minutes later.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Several times in the past year, I have been invited to comment on UC-related topics, despite the ban. In each case I have declined.

This time, as a full year had gone by, I responded to this request by asking here if everyone wanted me back. I was surprised to receive, rather than a "No, thanks", an immediate escalation to "Block him!".

I don't think that responding to a request to comment, with a query about whether others want the ban lifted, warrants a block. I will simply resume keeping quiet, as I have done for the past 14 months.

Thank you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you really think the way to challenge a ban from editing talk pages relating to the Unification Church was to... edit such a talk page? You used to be a crat, you had to know that wouldn't end well, instead of following protocol and appealing to WP:AE. Courcelles 21:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I should simply have reminded Kittfoxxe I was topic banned, instead of responding to his invitation by asking on the banned talk page for a ban removal. I apologize for my violation. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Geneva Conventions controversy, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geneva Conventions controversy until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor/Flat_earth_problem , I added a comment.D c weber (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cry vandal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Stricken passage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Courtstick has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, this edit (bulleted sentence) makes the lead kindof disjointed. What were you going for there? –xeno^talk 18:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You expect me to remember precisely what I was thinking that far back? I probably was just trying to add a few quotes about international law as background. There's a dispute over whether the US was "wrong" in all cases when it defoliated areas of Vietnam during the war.

I think Wikipedia should be neutral, rather than endorsing or promoting the "leftist" POV that the US was wrong. I think the article should just say that [blank] opposed the US practice, on certain grounds (such as treaties or international law); while [blank] supported the US practice on certain other grounds.

If I recall correctly, the article had leaned toward siding with "America was wrong" POV before I started, and I was probably trying to make it just be neutral: not saying America was right, not saying it was wrong: just describing each viewpoint accurately. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my original question was unclear: I'm not really talking about POV issues - I was asking if it was meant to appear that way (cosmetically) - the bullet point, the fragmentary nature, disrupts the flow of the lead. I would try to repair myself, but figured you would be better equipped. –xeno^talk 19:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

[10] Tweak as desired. –xeno^talk 13:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw you added this quote from Scott Ambler about Database refactoring. Even Assuming Good Faith, it's almost impossible to believe you hadn't read the existing article, given that the lede is almost identical to the quote you added. I know that at Conservapedia you have a habit of creating articles with quotations, but at WP, you should at least read what already exists. In addition, adding a quote in the way you did doesn't fit with WP:CITE.

You've been around much longer than me, so please forgive this telling off. --rpeh •T•C•E• 02:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I did read the lede, and I felt that replacing it with the Scott Ambler quote - or incorporating the quote, would have improved the article. Clearly, you disagree.

I generally prefer to let other writers speak for themselves, especially when they say something better than any free-licensed summary can. Often the experts really know what they're talking about. Not always, of course, but when they do let's take advantage of their expertise. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ed! I would like to request that the redirect RIGHT point to the brand new Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. Get it?!? I would very much appreciate it. Thanks! Lionel (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I have thought about your request, I just don't know how much time or energy I would have to give to such a project. Arzel (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:POV. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:POV redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). CTJF83 00:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Americans (USA). Since you had some involvement with the Americans (USA) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What were you thinking with this edit? A signed, uncited, POV-pushing edit on an article - not the talk page - breaks so many rules I can't even begin to enumerate them! If you were a n00b, it might be excusable, but for somebody who has been around as long as you have I can't even begin to comprehend what you were trying to do here. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I can. He made a mistake and put that nonsense in the article instead of the talk page, where it would also have been inappropriate but wasn't revertable on sight. Nuttish (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ed Poor. You have new messages at Talk:Emissions trading.
Message added 23:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A tag has been placed on J.C.C. McKinsey 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 important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. andy (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you speedy J.C.C. McKinsey because you don't think he's important, or just because you wanted me to develop the article by myself more fully before placing into the main namespace?

• If (like me) you've never heard of him there's nothing in the article to indicate why he should be in wikipedia, i.e. the article "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". andy (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  Okay, but how about now, after I've made 3 additional edits to the bio? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Unit cohesion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unit cohesion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't help save this article as any kind of favor to you, please note. Too many of your subsequent edits are in style that I and others found so problematic (even if I disagreed with others about whether the problems constituted grounds for deletion.) In the current style of the article, they stick out like sore thumbs -- or worse, as presenting potentially dominant themes when it's not clear what theme, if any (race, class, sexual orientation, gender, and that's not the end of it) should be most prominent in this article.

See WP:LONGQUOTE. And WP:UNDUE, for that matter. To some extent, what WP:QUOTEFARM says about boxed quotes applies, I think, to longer quotes: they can make a quote seem as if it represents some kind of officially sanctioned Wikipedia stance.

I don't care if you were one of the first N people to edit Wikipedia. Protocol and style guidelines have evolved since those early days, and Wikipedia is clearly the better for it. I'm not after WP:PERFECT, but I don't understand why you don't try to do at least a little better, especially with this particular article after this particular incident. It's hard work cleaning up after you -- please don't make it harder. Yakushima (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a very good writer (and certainly not a hard worker). My talent is not so much in writing as in realizing that a topic needs to be written about.

You are right, things have changed since the early days. From 2001 to 2004, I would just create a stub and watch with joy as others jumped in and did 90% of the work. I started about 1,100 articles that way (which still exist). But nowadays, people want to see much more work done before the initial submission.

I probably should have done a lot more with the article elsewhere before submitting it, like forming the quotes into a proper article (which you did for me). When I start the Gender norming article, I will try to keep your suggestions in mind. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving your question here, because it's about the article topic, not about improving the article:

As the article says (section Impossible liaison), the ‹t› of et is never pronounced. Your example begins [eila], not [etila] (can you read that?). CapnPrep (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the answer, and I hope we can think of a way to make this more clear in the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen (2nd nomination). Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it just needs some good examples adding with cites to complete that new section. You already gave one example on talk. It might prove hard to be brief on saying why/how they are marginalised, however. cheers Peter morrell 04:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

With respect to this malformed creation, I would suggest that you read WP:Competence is required. If you aren't competent to create an article, at least to a minimal standard, then don't try -- it would save a lot of deletion proceedings (which your user talk is always chock full of notifications for). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from outdated templates, there are 10 AfD notices on my talk page. All but three are for articles that survived the deletion proceedings. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, a blue link does not indicate AfD outcome of "keep" - Democratically elected's was closed with a delete; currently there's a redirect, hence the blue link.

Where did the personal attacks occur? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Global-citizen.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cult checklist is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult checklist until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Before I answer, I'll need assurances that no sysop will block my account on grounds of breaking COI. Last time I was invited to post on a talk page, even asking there whether I would not be breaking COI was deemed a deliberate violation. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please comment there. I think and hope that you are paranoid and I will defend you if you are attacked for this small matter. Andries (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not paranoia; I refer to this if you'd care to look into it.

About the article, though, I feel it's useful because various "anti-cult" or "counter-cult" people have used the cult checklists as evidence in their arguments that various religious groups were "cults" in the sense of brainwashing hapless victims into joining something which harms them psychologically. It's good to keep these around for those interested in the history of how new religions are persecuted.

Or for those who take the opposite POV, the history of how cults eventually find a way to get away with it. Either way, we should keep it for the sake of describing the controversy ... assuming a neutral approach is what we're looking for.

But I worry also that this new rule they made up a few years ago about "undue weight" (a concept unique to Wikipedia editorial policy, as evidenced by the red link in this sentence) will be used to suppress any viewpoint that runs counter to the mainstream. I would think that as long as we are clear that we are not giving either POV any "validity" but simply describing it this would not be a problem.

I used to be able to describe any view on any topic, but I found that some people who prefer exalting a popular view to the neglect of less popular views have found a way to game the system and evade NPOV. When I pointed this out, they accused me of violating NPOV. Now I'm under various bans.

Perhaps the atmosphere will change in coming years, but until then I must be extra careful. The idea of "assume good faith" is lost, and if I make even one mistake in a year, they jump on me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Visual Studio properties box.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's too much boilerplate text for me to wade through. I took a screenshot, and I don't think Microsoft will challenge "fair use". If that's not good enough, then delete the image. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you are under rather strict, general editing restrictions after two arbcom cases. I will request that the editing restrictions will be more specific and less strict. I really do not understand the talk page restrictions. But of course, do not expect miracles from me. Andries (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I have learned in the couple of years to go with the flow and follow the consensus. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom request for amendment by me. Please comment there, because you are involved. It is a rather small request, but it is easy to defend it. Andries (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC) ::Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEd_Poor_2

Please answer Bishonen question to you. When were you invited to comment on UC related subjects? Andries (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to delay the split. The move was a while ago and no one seems to be objecting. Just remember to attribute the text you move to the new article. Also, I don't make the decision on splitting, the editors involved do. In this case you will only discover if there are objections by doing the split. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, is there still a Voodoo science article as a general topic, separate from the article on the book Voodoo Science? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ed,

I'm fine with Stephan, but I'm not "Mr. Schulz"....assuming you were addressing me, of course. This applies, although I'm a bit less testy. No hard feelings... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm awful sorry about that. I really should know better. May I address you as Stephan then or as Dr. Schulz? No disrespect intended! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't expect it was. As I wrote, Stephan is fine. I'm less a stickler for formality than for correctness. I am a professional nit-picker (otherwise known as a theoretical computer scientist), after all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny you should put it that way (a nit is the egg of a louse), because when my daughter was 3 years old I found her on the front porch one day with a box full of insects she had collected from the lawn. I had no idea why she would be interested in bugs. It wasn't till several hours later that I recalled having told my wife about going to work to look for bugs, and how important it was to my boss! --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)