Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:54, 18 July 2006

I'm out. It's too hard to make NPOV edits with a whole gang of POV-pushing hypocrites dogging my every move, and accusing ME of what they are themselves guilty of.

Misplaced Pages has gone to the dogs. --Uncle Ed 21:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, please lay off the insults. When you believe that everyone in the world is wrong... it's probably because you're wrong. You have it back to front - you are accusing people of doing what you are guilty of. Guettarda 21:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Painting one's self as the victim in order to gain sympathy of others, when in fact that one person is the instigator of the issue in the first place, is not an unsual trolling strategy. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ed, I am so sorry to hear you are going. I valued your feedback. In Buddhism it is believed that it is your adversaries that make you better. Like sandpaper. I think that is why Jesus said "love your enemies." I feel that my edits are better because of your feedback. I enjoyed our bantering back and forth. With Regards and Thanks Marknw 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed, you don't know me, but I'm a Teaching Assistant at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado. Indeed, I feel like I know you quite well though! I used your arguments from Talk:Intelligent_Design in my class last semester about the scientific method. Specifically, how you ignored it and instead tried to use popularity ("80% of churchgoers 'prefer the theory of creationism'")to push your POV. My students learned a lot from you. It is too bad that your leaving, but I have your wonderful rhetoric archived for all time to use in future classes. Thanks --Petersian 22:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever heard the expression "don't kick 'em when they're down"? guess not--F.O.E. 06:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Calendars

		The Template Barnstar
		I, Gabriel Hurley (aka Munchkinguy) award you the Template Barnstar for creating a solution to automate the "hilighted date" changing on Wikiproject Calendars --Munchkinguy 04:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm glad someone reckognizes all the good this man has done for wikipedia--F.O.E. 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed

I just wanted to let you know you still have my support. And the brainwashed spineless many and the mindless many and the screwed up crats and mins are all going to the dogs. Cause they are. Cause I said so. So there.

And down with the Misplaced Pages that hardly anyone can edit. And up with the new Misplaced Pages that anyone can edit. YaY 203.234.156.4 03:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It truly is sad to see you depart us within such a nick of time. You were a good editor, no matter what anyone says. I'll miss you and I'm sure numerous others will as well. Godspeed. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything's gone to the dogs! Boo hoo hoo. Sunray 22:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Things were so much better back in the day. Men were real men, women were real women, and no one but white Christian heterosexual males had any say in anything. JF Mephisto 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A new userbox you might like

Hi Ed,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )

Cheers,

 Netsnipe    06:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish you had resisted. (I might have to "come back" now, and finish the job. ;-) --Uncle Ed 19:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean you liked or hated the userbox? It's a bit hard to figure out your reaction from that line Ed = ) . Anyway, it got speedily deleted though there's enough support for a DRV: User talk:Netsnipe/User Bureaucratic F**k judging from the comments I've recevied so far from other admins/editors. Cheers,  Netsnipe    18:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It was funny, but the speedy delete seemed justified to me. I no longer feel that "fighting fire with fire" is any sort of viable option around here, even in jest. Liberal bias has too much of a grip on Misplaced Pages now. --Uncle Ed 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology

It was appreciated. --ScienceApologist 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Observation

Come now Ed, you know you implied an opinion on materialism (and your edit history does indeed speak volumes). Thus, what you term a personal attack, was in reality, an observation based on nearly a year's experience. I'm sorry you took it as an attack, but that was not the intent. Oh, BTW, should you wish that I post an NPA warning on your page each time you start your "FM and his gang" bit? I will, if you'd like. •Jim62sch• 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already taken that back (in good faith) , but if you feel it's necessary I don't mind. I'd like us all to be courteous to one another. Any wording I place on a talk page which is offensive to you (even by mistake) is something I will work hard to avoid! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet your personal attack against me there still stands... You chose to personalized your difficulties at the project as being "railroaded" by "FM and his gang." There's a level of hypocrisy here in your actions that makes your claim of desiring nothing more than courtesy more than a bit disingenuous. This a is case of reaping what you sow Ed; I'm sorry you find that difficult to accept, but there it is. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To "railroad" is

• To convict (an accused person) without a fair trial or on trumped-up charges.

Your RFC against me is indeed based on trumped-up charges. If you'll withdraw the false charges, I will stop criticizing you for having made them. This is the last deal I intend to offer you. Choose wisely. --Uncle Ed 19:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I don't see the RfC being based on trumped-up charges. You really were quite obstinate the last time you were here at Misplaced Pages. You created policy that looked like gaming the system, you claimed that the edits you wanted to make were minor but when someone reverted them they were engaging in "mass reverts", and when discussion actually was attempted you disappeared (as happened on Talk:Creation-evolution controversy). Now you seem to be accusing FM of creating a cabal, and yet you still maintain that the RfC is trumped-up? --ScienceApologist 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Threats and personal attacks? Is this your idea of "turning over a new leaf"? Your RFC was endorsed by far more than just me, Ed. Get real. FeloniousMonk 19:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made no threat. And it's not a personal attack to complain that your RFC was trumped up. In fact the very first piece of "evidence" is false on its face, as at least one other user has noted.

Your relentless campaign of accusing me of disruption and other violations has to stop. Otherwise, I'm going to stop ignoring it. That's all I'm saying. Please stop reading sinister motives into all my attempts to get you to comply with Misplaced Pages policy. You've already been warned by an Arbitrator.

But don't hold your breath. I simply don't have the time to counter your attempts to subvert NPOV on a full-time basis. I just wanted to give you a fair chance, because until about 2 years ago, you had often helped me create good articles. I don't know what changed since then that would make you want to attack me - a perceived weakness, perhaps? You'd be better off simply working on neutral articles instead of attacking me. --Uncle Ed 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are making threats. No one said legal threats. Your RFC was not "trumped up". It was fair. But you chose to ignore it. As for personal attacks, how about "your attempts to subvert NPOV"? How about your false accusation that the RFC was "trumped up"? Guettarda 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you believe in tit-for-tat - which is actually against web site policy. It's not a personal attack to say that FM is subverting NPOV: that'll be in his upcoming RFC if it comes to it. And it's not a threat to announce that I plan to stop someone from violating policy. Check WP:NPA. --Uncle Ed 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying "to stop someone from violating policy" sounds a lot like Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering to me. --ScienceApologist 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Take it back or else" (Ed's edit summary here is a threat. KillerChihuahua 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly take it that way...but then, my last observation was apparently a personal attack so what the hell do I know? •Jim62sch• 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Newbie1

Template:Newbie1 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. Alphachimp 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Ed

Hi Ed, it is good to see you back. It is not so good to hear you say things like "Liberal bias has too much of a grip on Misplaced Pages now." This POV will not help you in your relations with other editors and, I suggest, it will also not help you deal with wikistress. I submit that there are better ways to view Misplaced Pages at present. Take a look at the growing number of Featured articles and Good articles we now have. Or consider the number of projects aimed at further improving this amazing encyclopedia. After a period of explosive growth, Misplaced Pages is settling down to a much more mature and stable entity.

A word about the folks you have referred to as a "gang." I have a great deal of respect for some of these editors, who have taken a contentious topic (Intelligent Design) and established clear criteria for editing the article. Sure they each have a bias (as do we all), but they have worked out a consensus for the page that has resulted in steady improvements. Your own POV may militate against you editing this article without getting highly stressed and conflictual. If this is the case, why not edit somewhere else? Misplaced Pages is huge and there are many worlds within it.

I've interacted with you for almost three years on this project and have seen you do good work at times, get hooked into conflict at other times, get stressed and leave more than once. If I could offer you some welcoming back advice, it would be this: follow the precepts on your own User page and when in doubt, re-read the suggestions for dealing with wikistress. Best wishes, Sunray 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that bit of "sunshine". :-) I'll try to follow the part about staying out of conflict, but my perception of bias stands. In fact, the bias runs so deep that it can be hard to see.

If too many people develop a "consensus" POV on a topic, they might be unaware of the fact that they have a POV.

However, it might also be useless to try to change this. If 'Liberalpedia' has matured into a stable consensus to exalt the Liberal POV over all other POVs, then who am I to try to call for reform? (I'm not the voice of God.) To a return to the original Neutral POV that Larry Sanger attempted to champion? When I was one voice in 1,000 it made sense, but I'm seriously outgunned these days.

However, it does behoove me to take a more mellow approach, and if you see my getting stressed or conflictual please remind me to chill out. :-) --Uncle Ed 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

DDT use

Very interesting - I hadn't heard of any of this. I'll have to bring it up in my environmental science class. Very well then, I guess the editorializing in Crichton's article can stay out. --Liface 21:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

MONGO on wikipedia has impersonated you on Encyclopædia Dramatica as one of the sock puppets he used to vandalize their article about him, the other is MONGO1. I would link to proof to ED's "MONGO" article but MONGO has ordered me not to link to it (he has also removed the link to it from the article so you will have to see the article's history for the link). I am asking for a statement that it was not you. DyslexicEditor 00:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not me. --Uncle Ed 13:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)