User talk:EDM

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - BanyanTree 03:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

NESARA

I'd love to see what you can do. I think the bill could use a better summary, and the "case for" and "against" could use some truncating. Thanks for your thoughts, I too have enjoyed the conversation; and I look forward to seeing what you can contribue to a sound resolution on the article. Inigmatus July 6, 2005 04:59 (UTC)

• • I like it. Go ahead and edit it with your proposed changes, as consensus has been reached. We should move for speedy keep once done, so the admins can remove the VfD notice. Inigmatus July 6, 2005 14:51 (UTC)

Protege Battle on Ruth Montgomery

You win :). Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

School colors

Poly's school colors are ORANGE AND WHITE!!!!!!!!!! where on earth do you get this information. i live next to the school and have spoken with students & faculty. they say its ORANGE AND WHITE!!! Kiwidude July 8, 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Dear me. -EDM

Misguided

Thank you for your comments. I know that there is nothing that I can say or do to change your mind about astrology, so I won't even try. I would like to point out that although you do not find any value in astrology, the police and the military all use the paranormal to do their work. The USAF had a remote viewing project going on for about 20 years (I read about it in a recent Kindred Spirit magazine) and they selected people who were totally uninterested in the paranormal to do it because they wanted to make sure the people doing it were totally objective. I read in another magazine that the US government used psychics to locate Saddam Hussein, although they will never publicly admit to it. I have also personally met psychics who have been asked by the police to help them solve crimes, so these individuals are in great demand. Even though I have stated my case, I still know that you will nevertheless be closed minded about the whole thing and that is okay because it is your choice to believe whatever it is that you would like to believe. I will say, however, that I would much rather be a lone misguided astrologer who submits articles to various magazine and publications than some of the people who have submitted articles and postings about all manner of subjects, such as of all things, child loves. I have read one page of a person who was a pedofile and proud of it, so I am not too concerned if people think I am a bit misguided. I would also like to point out that I hold down a professional job and am studying for my accountancy exams, and I do not do astrology or any of my other paranormal interests in a professional capacity. I would rather make my money working in an office and will only earn a living doing paranormal if something happens and I am unable to get into the office every day. Regards,--TracyRenee 9 July 2005 09:38 (UTC)

Some kind wishes

And may I suggest that you change your demeaning and rude tone. No one cares for it. Kiwidude 16:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Elmer Davis

Great info on Elmer Davis. I had no idea that he was involved with the formation of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team --Dysepsion 07:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Templates

I admit that it was a rushed action to remove it so you're free to put it back if you want, but besides the linguistic errors on the supposedly native-level template, I also found its content to be somehow irrational: "Ancient Greek is dead, there are no native speakers" - obviously not, unless a person is over 2400 years old... On the other hand what happens if someone is familiar only with Doric Greek? The template is referring to Attic only, and there's no standard dialect of ancient Greek. I don't have any suggestions at the moment, but I feel that the Greek template in general can cover everything. Any speaker of Modern Greek will have low to intermediate level on any ancient stage of Greek, and vice versa (someone who has knowledge of Classic texts won't have much difficulty in understanding Medieval and Modern ones). If we wish to distinguish the periods of Greek as different languages, then things will get more complicated and will have to create separate templates for Koine, Medieval and Modern Greek. Just my opinion. Miskin 19:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

explanation of edit at LA meetup page

hi. was sorry to see you thought my point at Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/2 "frankly made no sense". i hope it was merely the brevity of the edit summary (the only place i explained it) that inspired the comment. my point, un-earthshaking as it may be, is a real and valid one. people often use the form, for example, "i asked her not to do it" to mean "i made a requst of her — that she not do it." however, the form is ambigious at best, and could be taken logically (if not traditionally) as "i didn't ask her to do it," based on the beginning, which is "i asked her not" or, put another way, "i did not ask her." apparently because of traditional spookiness re the supposed evil of split infinitives, people are hesitant to use the accurate, simple version: "i asked her to not do it." same amount of words as the first example, but the ambiguity is removed. a similarly accurate though stuffier construction avoids the split infinitive with the same words: "i asked her to do it not." it's similar to the difference in meaning between "do you believe there's not a god?" and "do you not believe there's a god?" most people don't see a difference, but it's huge.

despite my joke in the edit summary on that page, i don't go around looking for this subject. seriously. SaltyPig 05:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Your point may have been "real and valid" 400 years ago but in current English usage the phrase I asked her not does not mean I did not ask her. There is no ambiguity today in the phrase I asked her not to do it. That phrase has only one meaning, and though the placement of the not in the phrase may once have been due to squeamishness over splitting infinitives, today it is standard and it is fully semantically equivalent to the rendition I asked her to not do it. That is why I commented that your edit summary made no sense. I suggest you take your crusade to Elizabethan Wikipedia. -EDM 05:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

the crusade part, as i've explained, was a joke (i've been at wikipedia for years, and not made such an edit before). given that the accurate version (the one not relying on traditional misuse) uses the same words, i think you're overreacting. funny how you made an accurate version anyway there, despite me being full of it. well, it was good talking to you. keep up those great, spineful edit summaries! SaltyPig 06:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon edits

Thanks for that warning. I have reviewed them all and reverted some of them. Adam 00:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing those links on the Reuben Restaurant article, I'm not sure what I did there! Must have dozed off for a moment or something...Rx StrangeLove 18:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

A knock on my back door, from Brasil

[Leaving this section up for the duration of the RfC on Wiki brah. After that has been resolved, ideally by the ejection of that user, I'll take this down. -EDM]

[Deleted 17 October 2005]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

Hi, I'm just examining this debate with a view to closing. I notice that, with the best of intentions, you moved some comments off the debate page on the grounds that they were "non-votes". Please do not do that. This is NOT a vote, it's a debate, and the votes are just indications of personal opinion. In order to engage properly in the debate all editors in it should be able to see all other comments easily, so we don't like it when radical edits of this kind are made.

Thanks for attempting to improve things, but this isn't the way we do it here. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Commentary on Magus

Answer on the question about Zoroastrianism: it says in the article that "Christians believe Daniel set up a secret sect of Magi, to fulfill the event when it happened"; I was including this into my own similar conclusion. My sources are the Bible; specifically, the books of Daniel and Esther. You know, you can't keep the Bible and Judeo-Christianity separate from the rest of civilization and literature; secular literature cannot possibly explain the world, apart from the truths contained in the Bible. All secular attempts will fail. I don't believe that Biblical discussions and contributions should only be included on Biblical pages in wikipedia. Why should they be so limited? There is no sound reason. The Bible is the foundation of all knowledge; especially Western. 129.24.95.222 22:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (OCT.)

Pirate

Greetings EDM. I've looked over the pirate article a little and I think the if the silly part was reduced a little and the remaining could be put in logical order. The first paragraph could use some more historic info, I may have some here. KAM 00:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek

Nice job on the DOM article

I wanted to thank you for your rewrite of the DOM article. As I noted on the talk page, the article wasn't written by me, but was part of an ongoing revert war. I'm hopeful that your rewrite stays. Gene Poole added some additional things like the emblem in a template box, which along with your rewrite, really makes the article so much better.

I'd encourage you to hang around and see what happens. We are looking at merging the material from David Even Pedley into this article and deleting the forementioned article. Maybe we could talk you into consolidating the material so it would fit into your rewrite. Your NPOV writing is very good and it would help lessen the arguing I think. Davidpdx 07:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hello EDM, If you have any further interest in the DOM article, I've posted a message over there about better balance, facts and fairness below your talking points. It may take up too much of your time, but if you will take the time, you may be the solution to ending the revision war, which I've been on the other end of with Davidpdx. It seems that everyone so far has respect for your initial effort. Cordially, Johnski 11:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't mind taking a crack at it if the primary disputants on both sides want me to. I do have a day job so it wouldn't be immediate. I don't pretend to have expert knowledge about DoM, though I did know about it independent of Wikipedia. I have a few opinions about it which I believe I can manage to keep out of any rewrite. I've read Johnski's list of suggested changes posted today on the article talk page and my first reaction, without thinking too deeply about it, is that if I were to do another rewrite I would incorporate some but certainly not all of those thoughts.

  I did the rewrite yesterday mainly for fun because I stumbled over this article while looking for something else, and I thought it needed work. I don't want to invest a lot of additional time on it if there isn't the desire for it from both camps. -EDM 17:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hello EDM, that's great that you are willing to help. I think that if you can take into consideration my attempts to make this a better balanced article, it will be accepted. The main reason for not accepting anything from me is that I got off on the wrong foot with the other side, but I'm not alone as there are others that have sided me, and even your revision included some of the things I found too much opinion, removed.

  I'm surprised Davidpdx didn't claim you were one of my sock-puppets, but due to your diverse history in editing, they perhaps realized that would be a wasted effort. I've posted more stuff responding to Davidpdx on the DOM talk page and rewrote the article using the last version up at the time. By the time you see this it will probably be reverted again, so please look at the history and see if you find any merit to it. Sincerely, Johnski 05:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

EDM, I would welcome your input anytime. The rewrite was really good. I tend to agree with your comment on the DOM talk page. It might be best to wait until the outcome of the arbitration case is decided. I think the biggest hurdle that article has is the constant reverting of it which makes it very inconsistant. My hope is arbitration will end that and which will allow for improvements. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page. Davidpdx 06:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

WP quote in DOM article

EDM, I was looking at the Washington Post quote in the DOM article. It does seem like the quote is a little sloppy. I'm not sure who put it in there, but I wanted to get your take on what we could do. What do you think about just putting the words, "you get the feeling" back into the quote, or even just removing the quote completely. Please let me know what you think ASAP. Davidpdx 00:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My approach would be not to mention the Washington Post article at all in this section, as it is both a secondary source at best and for this purpose an opinionated one. I would therefore delete the entire first paragraph, and most of the second, in the "Recognition" section and instead say something like DoM asserts that it has bilateral diplomatic recognition with ..., listing the Central African Republic and the two or three other African countries mentioned on its website, with links to the two-page CAR document that I recall seeing somewhere here and to the "treaties of peace and recognition" that are reproduced here. Readers of the article can look at those treaties and form their own conclusion as to whether they establish diplomatic recognition. -EDM 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It may or may not also bear mentioning that President Kolingba, who signed the letter on behalf of the Central African Republic (or on whose behalf it was signed) was voted out of office shortly thereafter and the new government later relieved him of his military rank and charged several of his ministers with "various crimes." See Wikipedia's description of the sequence of events. If I were writing the article, I probably wouldn't include that, since similar things happen all the time elsewhere and that doesn't necessarily affect the validity of diplomatic recognitions conferred by the discredited regime. (I'm thinking particularly of Nixon and China.) -EDM 02:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting in terms of the change of leadership and a new constitution being put together. I wonder if CAR's recognition of DOM is still in force or if it is now just merely a document in terms of something that was done under the former regime. It would be interesting to contact CAR and see if they'd respond to the question whether the government still upholds DOM's recognition. Your discovery of information is quite fascinating.

If you don't mind, I'm going to erase the note you left on my talk page. Right now we don't need to stir the pot in terms of getting Johnski mad. Davidpdx 14:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

EDM, perhaps you could email me the note that Davidpdx thinks will get me mad. I doubt anything we are doing here could get me "mad", or you can post it here if you like. I hope that my comments to you haven't caused you to write things that would tend to make me mad. We can agree to disagree, and it isn't necessary that we see eye to eye. I believe you have a lot to offer Wikipedia including the subject article under discussion. Sincerely, Johnski 08:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The history tab is a wonderful thing. -EDM 14:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The note that I was referring to, was simply a message he left on my talk page referring to the comments you've already found. If you want to go trolling for evidence against me, do it yourself. EDM is not part of the arbitration case. Davidpdx 04:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Another crank weighs in

EDM, regarding the comments you made on the one editors talk page, I changed you comment slightly. You had stated that the person should put comments either on the talk page or on the arbitration page. At this point, only those named in arbitration should comment on it. That is of course they want to be a party to the whole mess, which I honestly wouldn't wish on anyone at this point. I hope you understand the reasoning behind it. Thanks.. Davidpdx 04:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

People die, but not pass away

EDM, you changed my edits in the Richard Nixon page from "passed away" to "died" [1] with the explanation that in Encyclopedias people do not "pass away", but "die". Perhaps you can enlighten me on the difference. I was always under the impression that the two are equivalent, but "pass away" is a more polite phrasing. --Asbl 22:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a pseudo-genteel euphemism that is fine if you are talking to your grandmother but it has no place in a reference work. -EDM 22:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think genteel is good. Why do you think that genteel should be limited to grandma, and "has no place in a reference work"? --Asbl 02:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

A reference work deals in facts, not euphemisms or appeals to emotion. "Pass away" is POV. -EDM 04:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I would not call "pass away" a "point of view". My first reaction was also to say that it is not a euphemism, but I looked up the definition [2]

The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive

and I guess you could say that it is a substitution of a mild term for a harsh term, so it is the lowest form of euphemism. I typically think of euphemisms on the other end of the spectrum, such as "mentally challenged" for "retarded". I think the use of euphemisms at the low end is acceptable for encyclopedic uses. --Asbl 06:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• And I disagree, so I think this discussion can usefully end. -EDM 06:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"I disagree" is not a respectable way to end a discussion. If no further examples or evidence is given, I may decide to change back to the milder form of "passed away" (just to avoid any confusion, I am NOT a fan of that crook). --Asbl 07:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Chris

Hi. Please don't wish death upon Chris, [3] 'tis too extreme a sentiment for vandalism. Humorlessly yours, El_C 06:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, lighten up. -EDM 14:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Buffalo, NY

I'll give it a look, but I recommend contacting an admin and ask for intervention. From what I've seen it seems to be a clear case of cruft, but that's just my opinion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Stanley Williams's 15 minutes of Wikifame

Crap

You're right [4] was in North Carolina by some dude named Kenneth Lee Boyd . I assumed the IP was blanking sources, so I'll apologize to him. Thanks. ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Tookie Williams, again

I appreciate your work to make this more readable. I'm not sure I agree with your deletion of the appeals info. I digested it from over 100 pages. If wikpedia is an encyclopedia, shouldn't we have athoritative information, not the urban myths that pass for news in the media? --Beth Wellington 17:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We should certainly have authoritative information rather than media error, no argument from me on that point. But I think that raw quotation from a court opinion isn't suitable for the article, since the significance may not be obvious to the casual reader. The outcome of a particular court proceeding should be summarized (e.g., Williams was convicted, his habeas petition was denied, etc.), and how that outcome fits into the overall course of his defense and challenges to conviction should be explained; but the dates of argument, names of amici, unexplained references to Batson challenges, etc. are just clutter.

The portion I removed had two lengthy raw quotes. The first one I already distilled in an edit yesterday morning [5], and I placed the actual text on the Talk page for reference. The second was a quote from the dissent to the denial of rehearing en banc; it's not the holding of any pertinent opinion and doesn't explain the course of Williams' appeal process. At most, the article could say something like "The Ninth Circuit denied Williams' petition for a rehearing, over a dissent from some members who believed Williams had presented a colorable claim of racially discriminatory jury selection" (not calling it Batson error, a term the typical reader won't understand). -EDM 18:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that I needed to take out technical terms. I think that your distillation was so brief so as not to give the flavor. I think your synopsis is fine but "colorable" is as bad as "Batson error." I responded to your comment on myuser page on that page. Aargh. Enough for now. Got to cook something for a potluck for a bookgroup discussing Penelope Lively's, The Photograph.

Stanley Williams book sales

Thanks for helping to clean up my sentence about this on the Stanley Williams article. I think "Reportedly, Williams' books have not enjoyed strong sales" is much clearer wording.

I emailed the author of that article trying to get closer to the source of the data, but basically his publisher performed the (I presume paid) search of BookScan in order to get the information. I can forward you the email if you are interested in pursuing it further.

Again, thanks! Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ivory Coast move

Since you participated in previous discussions on Ivory Coast, you might be interested in the requested move at Talk:Côte_d'Ivoire#...Requested_move. —  AjaxSmack  06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)