→Observation: More attacks? Why not just abide by NPOV and be done with it? |
|||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
: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"? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:52, 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"? [[User:Guettarda|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]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:00, 14 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.
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia that hardly anyone can edit. And up with the new Wikipedia 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 (Talk) 06:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
WP: Policies & guidelines This Wikipedian is proud to be a “Bureaucratic F**k”. |
- 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 (Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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) [1], 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.
- To "railroad" is
- 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)