Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC).

Ed Fitzgerald (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Ed Fitzgerald disagrees with Wikipedia style guidelines, but refuses to propose changes in the appropriate forum. Instead, Ed is trying to impose his own style against consensus.

Desired outcome

For Ed to acknowledge that WP:IAR is not a license to override a clear consensus, and to modify his behavior accordingly.

Description

User:Ed Fitzgerald seems to have a problem with guidelines, as evidenced by his personal philosophy stated on his user page.[1] In mainspace, Ed has repeatedly ignored WP:MOS and related style guidelines: Ed's unilateral style changes have been unanimously opposed by User:Clarityfiend, User:Luigibob, User:Tagishsimon and others. Tagishsimon has recommended to Ed that he propose whatever changes he wants in an MOS guidelines forum and not engage in edit wars to forward his view. This was seconded by Clarityfiend. However, Ed has ignored this suggestion. Ed has a perceived disregard for trying to reach a consensus, and appears willing to ignore one and edit war when consensus is contrary to his opinion.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Edit warring and adding italics against consensus - [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
Edit warring and adding bolding against consensus - [11], [12], [13], [14]
Edit warring and specifying image size against consensus - [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]
Edit warring and removing citation requests - [20],[21]
Adding italics and bolding - [22]
Placing cleanup tags in a section called "tags" - [23], [24]
Unlinking dates - [25]

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Discussion about Ed's use of italics in cast sections initiated by Clarityfiend at Talk:Female (film)#Cast:[26], [27], [28] WP:3O requested by Clarityfiend: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Responding to WP:30, Cop 663 recommends that Ed take his concerns to MOS:FILM: [34]. Clarityfiend also asks Ed to take his concerns to MOS:FILM:[35]. In response to these requests, Ed does not seem to to want to conform to consensus on the matter:[36] Viriditas asks Ed to stop italicizing and to discuss changes to cast style guidelines at MOS:FILM:[37] Ed replies, but doesn't see why he should respect consensus:[38], [39] Dihydrogen Monoxide responds to the WP:30 and asks Ed to respect consensus:[40]. In response to the new consensus developed through WP:30, Ed makes it clear that he still refuses to respect consensus, and promises to keep editing against the MOS in other articles, but agrees to remove this page from his watchlist.[41], [42]
Viriditas asks Ed to discuss his addition of italics to the cast section on My Man Godfrey at MOS:FILM: [43] No response from Ed.
SilkTork raises a concern shared by him and Luigibob about Ed's use of italics.[44]
Discussion between Ed, Clarityfiend, and Tagishsimon at Talk:A Matter of Life and Death (film)#Bolding. Clarityfiend raises the issue of Ed's use of bolding and the issue is discussed:[45], [46], [47]. Ed responds with the same objections to consensus on MOS:[48], [49]. Tagishsimon weighs in on Ed's use of boldface and asks him to please follow the MOS and consider respecting consensus: [50], [51]. Ed refuses:[52], [53]. Tagishsimon recommends an RFC:[54]
After being reverted twice[55][56] by Ed for implementing WP:MOS#Images, Rich257 explains the MOS on image size to Ed on Talk:The Dam Busters (film)[57] Two weeks later, Ed finally responds on the talk page,[58][59][60] but continues to edit war.[61][62] Brian Crawford leaves another explanation about MOS image sizes, this time on Ed's talk page.[63]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon - See Talk:A Matter of Life and Death (film)#Bolding for my efforts to get Ed to do other than impose his preferred formatting. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Tried and failed to point Ed in the right direction on his talk page. This same, exact behavior occured in July 2007, except Ed's unilateral changes against consensus involved cleanup templates and upset some of our best editors and admins. See the original AN/I report and this recap on talk for more detail. I went out of my way to try to help Ed in 2007 and in 2008 with no change in his behavior. The pattern is the same. I want to point out that I personally think Ed Fitzgerald is a great editor and has a lot to offer this project. What bothers me is that he doesn't respect consensus or the views of other good editors. While this would make Ed a maverick in the right arena, on Wikipedia it makes him disruptive and difficult to work with in an effective manner. In many ways, I agree with Ed's beliefs on the subject of MOS and cleanup tags, but disagree with his way of going about it. I feel the same about most of his edits. I agree with him in spirit, but disagree with the way he implements his solutions, some of which have created more harm than good. We should always remember to first, do no harm. This approach doesn't concern Ed, and I get the sense that he prefers rolling up his sleeves and raising the Jolly Roger. As a result, long-term editors like User:Robert Brockway have left the project in frustration with Ed's behavior.[64] Ed's refusal to collaborate and abide by consensus, as well as ownership issues in articles like Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb continues. The talk page of that article demonstrates the same, ongoing problem. I think the problem could be solved if Ed agreed to limit his reverts to 1RR. To quote KillerChihuahua: "IAR and BB have limitations - they are not a blanket permission to do whatever you wish against consensus."[reply]
I have also spoken with Ed: User_talk:Ed_Fitzgerald#Son_of_Italics. He appears to have a firm belief that he is working in the best interests of Wikipedia even though people have asked him to consider general consensus. It is sad that it comes to a RfC because he is not accepting what several people are telling him. There are times when many of us feel that we have a better way of doing things and try out those ideas - that is right and proper. But when a number of different editors express concern with the new ideas that it a time to consider what is being said, and either stop doing it, or look for a wider consensus. I don't think Ed is being deliberately disruptive, and he does have the good of the project at heart, but his continued actions are both inappropriate and disruptive. SilkTork *^YES! 12:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a situation with EF re the film Anatomy of a Murder, but I blame myself for not reaching out to him and trying to solve our differences. I just walked away. As they say, my bad. That being said, he did come to the article a bit like a "bull in a China shop" and wanted to do things his way. I usually do communicate, but this time I did not. Let me tell you, working on a collaborative project can be difficult at times. At this point, due to SilkTork's guidance, I have reached out to him, and we are working on another article together very well (see: The Hitch-Hiker) . He does have excellent ideas and is well educated, no question about that. My deal is that I want to keep Wikipedia (as it comes to films) as uniform as possible, and EF does sometimes fight that. I trust all will work out in the end, with all of us working together as we should. ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas has covered my disagreement with Mr Fitzgerald well. Mr Fitzgerald was simply unwilling to attempt to come to a consensus with me. My absence from the project since Feb 11 2008 is a result of my interactions with Mr Fitzgerald and others who do not attempt to come to resolutions through consensus. Indeed Mr Fitzgerald's own post at Talk:Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb#Slim_Pickens_and_whether_he_really_did_know_he_was_in_a_comedy led me to believe that he misunderstood the nature of consensus on Wikipedia. I do not wish this to sound like a witch-hunt and this problem is not limited to a single user. It is my opinion that en.WP needs to deal more decisively with people who are not attempting to come to a resolution based on consensus. I am heartened to see this issue being raised and will consider a return to the project now. Robert Brockway (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I think the dispute here stems from a conflict between fundamentally different views about Wikipedia's many guidelines. I have great respect for Clarityfiend as an editor - as I've mentioned before on article talk pages and on the user's own talk page, I think he or she does very good work, especially in an area I also concentrate on, articles about films. Because of that, it pains me somewhat to be in conflict with this good editor, but the conflict seems to have been inevitable because of our philosophical differences.

My understanding of the various Manual of Style guidelines stems from this language, which is prominently displayed on the top of the Manual's pages:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article.

Wikipedia was created ex nihilo, out of nothing, which means that if it was intended that the project's style manual be absolute and binding, it could have been written that way. There's no particular reason that the MoS couldn't say: "This is the way Wikipedia articles must be written. There can be no deviation from these rules." That the choice was made instead to present the manual as guidelines is, I think, highly significant, and my view of how they are to be used centers on that choice and the difference between guidelines and absolute rules.

Guidelines provide us with the collective wisdom of Wikipedia's editors through the years, to help and guide up in our editing. As such, they certainly should be paid close attention to, for this guidance is invaluable. Unfortunately, if guidelines are applied as if they are absolute rules, they, in effect, become just that, absolute rules and not guidelines. The only way to maintain the difference between the two is for there to be some leeway for editors to try things out, to see how they work, and find out how they survive in the "marketplace" of Wikipedia ideas. For Wikipedia to stay alive and vital, it must evolve; to evolve, there must be change; for there to be change, new things must be tried and allowed to see if they can flourish. But that's not possible if every time something even very slightly different is tried, an editor with a dogmatic and absolutist view of the MoS comes along and reverts it, using the MoS as a cudgel to stamp out even minor differences.

At all times when I edit, my concern is to improve the article I'm editing, and therefore the encyclopedia in general. My basic succinct WikiPhilosophy is stated on my user page:

Wikipedia exists for the people who use it, not for the people who edit it. Every edit should either improve the factual accuracy of Wikipedia or make it easier and more useful for the reader. Any edit which does not serve these goals is a waste of time and energy, and quite possibly counterproductive.
Wikipedia needs good information, well presented.

In determining what best presents the information in an article, at times my considered judgment about what best serves the information differs slightly from that presented in the MoS. Sometimes my choice of formatting falls in the holes present in the Manual, and sometimes it's in conflict in minor ways, but always, always, my concern is to present the information in the best possible way.

There's a legitimate concern that if editors are allowed the kind of freedom I'm suggesting to try even slightly new things, doesn't it, in effect, nullify the Manual of Style? I don't believe it does, and I certainly wouldn't advocate that people stop making corrections based on the MoS, because the vast majority of the time the editor being corrected didn't know what was expected, or was just mistaken. But if a correction based on MoS is made, and the editor comes back with a coherent, plausible and reasonable explanation about why they used a non-standard formatting and what effect they were trying to achieve, then I think it's incumbent on the correcting editor to back off a bit, and if they decide to follow-through, to evaluate the new formatting with an open mind, considering what the other editor is attempting to do, and without bias in favor of the MoS. If, instead, they keep coming back and making the same corrections again and again, using the MoS as the only criteria, then that effectively treats the MoS as dogma and not as guidance.

The variations being complained out here are, in a way, incredibly minor: whether the name of a character in a cast list can be italicized, whether an unlinked name who is the subject of a "cast note" can be bolded to make it stand out and make it easier for the reader to see who the note is about, and so on -- and yet, in the discussion concerning them, it's been said that allowing such minor variations, such very slightly different things to stand is a slippery slope that will lead to anarchy. The only way these minor attempts at improving the presentation of information can be viewed in such a radical way is by seeing the guidelines as absolute and inviolate rules which must be slavishly followed at every instance, without fail, and without exception. Unfortunately for editors who hold that opinion, the guidelines themselves are clear that this is not the way they are to be interpreted.

Links These may be some of the same links provided by the complaintant - I have not checked those out. Nevertheless, I'm satisfied to allow my side of these discussions to stand as is. I believe I've been fairly consistent in my views, and the presentation of them has been, I hope, coherent and understandable.

bolding in "cast notes"
use of italics in cast lists
placement of clean-up templates
guidelines vs. rules

These also may be of interest in understanding my approach to editing on Wikipedia. (This is, incidentally, the first time I have ever linked to these sections of my user page anywhere on Wikipedia.):

My "anti-dogma" rules of thumb
Some observations about Wikipedia and Wikipedians

Users who endorse this summary:

Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Baseball Bugs

I'm uncertain, from the various postings, whether there has actually been edit warring going on, or if it's just frustration over Ed's non-standard approach. I've seen plenty of non-standard editing by countless users. I'm probably one of them. There are many robot programs running on this system, looking for stuff to do, like systematically unlinking dates (one user call mouse-somthing or something-mouse does that routinely). Unless Ed is reverting after someone else corrects the formatting, I'm not sure the issue warrants all this attention. Maybe someone could write a robot program to spin through all the articles and look for manual-of-style violations? That would certainly be more efficient than going after individual users for those violations.

Users who endorse this summary:

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that this is probably a step too far, and it is a relatively small matter. I wouldn't have brought it myself. Ed is someone that people can talk with, and he has considered what people are saying to him. It might be better for someone (who really cared enough) to have a long discussion with Ed about the relative merits and demerits of his indiosyncratic approach to the use of italics. SilkTork *^YES! 13:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While Ed's style does bug me at times, I don't think this is an especially big deal. I can understand Ed's points about the MoS being a set of guidelines, not a set of rules, but it is, after all, a set of guidelines with consensus behind it. This should be the point brought up by those who wish to "correct" Ed's editing. Explanations as to why the MoS is the way it is will work better than "You're doing it wrong". --clpo13_(talk) 18:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ed's rather unusual commentary and "off-the-wall", and "out-of-left-field" approach is idiosyncratic, frustrating, and at the same time, eminently challenging, demanding, refreshing and entirely within the realm of interesting human interactions. He is unique and although forthright in his opinions, always comports himself in my limited experiences with him, as a gentleman. I consider this RfC as a bit of a "head-butting" exercise between two equally matched individuals with divergent opinions but ultimately revolving around both parties not being able to come to a friendly resolution. This may be the time to "take a deep breath," and follow your kindergarten teacher's sage advice, say "sorry," "shake hands" and remember to "treat each other with respect." FWiW, take my comments for what they are, an outsider looking in... Bzuk (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Agree entirely. The claims of disruptive or unseemly conduct on the part of Ed Fitzgerald are as minor as the conduct of certain editors certifying the basis of the dispute (whom engaged in edit-warring, personal attacks, incivility or assumptions of bad faith). It's a head-butting exercise, looking at the nature of the comments made by involved editors: Viriditas and that of Tagishsimon here when they disagreed with the fact that there was insufficient evidence provided here before. As an editor uninvolved in this dispute, I am also of the opinion to dismiss this Rfc - it is far too premature, and is unwarranted at this stage. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I will be adding a separate view instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by mrg3105

Ah, but ladies and gentlemen,regardless of the MoS guidelines, Wikipedia is a reference work not a place for graphic design publishers to practice their skills :o) The important thing is content and not presentation, and looking at the examples of edits made by Ed, it seems to me the content is none the worse for wear. The use of bold and italics is often overdone in articles, and I tend to remove some of it myself when I see people seeking to make an emphasis where none is needed. In general, and following the great KISS principle, bold should only be used for the first sentence in the article, while italics can be used for non-English words or (maybe) Latin expressions, or short quotes. That is all that is usually seen in other reference works. Most people know editors can use they keyboard, but are mostly interested in being able to read without adjusting their eyesight too often. As for dates, it seems to me this is also often overdone. Not every date in the article needs to be linked, does it? we are only interested in the dates related to the subject of the article.

Users who endorse this summary:

mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ncmvocalist

The complaining party comprised mostly of editors who certified the basis of this dispute, including Clarityfiend and Viriditas. The other party is of course the subject of the Rfc – Ed Fitzgerald.

Evidence

The complaining party has given about 23 diffs in evidence of the disputed behavior, under about 7 different categories, and about 35 diffs were given in evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute.

The party who is the subject of this Rfc provided no diffs of evidence but provided a lengthy response explaining his view of the dispute.

I accepted certain diffs and explanations including those cited in my findings below.

Findings

The complaining party, (whether it was during the dispute or in this very Rfc against uninvolved editors), have engaged in a variety of disruptive and/or unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([71] [72] [73]).

The other party, who is the subject of this Rfc, has also engaged in disruptive and/or unseemly conduct, including a greater extent of of edit-warring ([74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]).

The subject of this Rfc also made edits that compromised the integrity of Wikipedia. Removing ^{[citation needed]} tags is a particularly serious matter when tags are only near certain disputed statements. The argument that other articles do not have such tags, or that the tag is 'unnecessary', is an unacceptable/invalid justification in these circumstances. The edits ([87] [88]) not only clearly compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, but fail to comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy and edit-warring policy. I also find it was inappropriate to move the maintenance tags ([89] [90]).

Policies take precedence over guidelines, and repetitively failing to comply with policy is unacceptable. They take precedence over any of the arguments concerning MOS or formatting - there was no dire need to make inconsequential changes to the cited instances of italics, bolding, image sizes, linking dates, or lack thereof.

The conduct and/or attitude of both parties was therefore unimpressive. Under no circumstances (whether it be on an article, a talk page, or during the dispute resolution process) is it considered acceptable to engage in disruptive edit-warring and/or unseemly conduct. Therefore, if this sort of behaviour continues, or recommences, then each party may become subject to an arbitration hearing, or may be blocked or banned for a specified duration of time.

In order to avoid engaging in disruptive conduct, editors (on either side) could have, and still should, let the issue go, and deal with it once it is at a stage that is considered significant – eg; FAC. If this is not possible for any editor, then they are advised to stay away from any articles currently in the middle of your dispute, avoid talking to or about each other, and refamiliarize yourself with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and have another look at your conduct over time to help make sure these sort of issues don't occur again. If this is not possible either for any editor, then they will need to take a break from editing and being involved in Wikipedia, whether it is voluntary, or enforced by administrators and/or the Arbitration Committee. The complaining party needs to understand why or how uninvolved editors do not view this dispute as necessarily warranting an Rfc.

Both parties are being reminded of the following Wikipedia principles – please consider it a final warning on the matter.

Principles

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Wikipedia users are therefore expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making and vandalism, is prohibited.

Editors are also each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions – such exceptions are not applicable in this case.

Wikipedia articles are to be written from a neutral point of view and without bias, and must not contain advocacy for any organization, cause, or belief. Assertions of fact, particularly controversial or disputed ones, should be supported by citation to reliable and verifiable sources.

Summary Conclusion

Both parties, particularly the subject of the Rfc, are therefore encouraged to stop engaging in disruptive and unseemly conduct, and to comply with the Wikipedia principles outlined. They need to let these inconsequential instances of formatting go, and deal with it once it is at a stage that is considered significant by uninvolved editors. If this is not possible for any editor, then such editors are recommended to either avoid each other, or if necessary, to take a break from editing and being involved in Wikipedia, whether it is voluntary, or enforced by administrators and/or the Arbitration Committee.

Users who endorse this summary:

Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A belated entry to the discussion

Ahem. Um, as best as I can recall, I've never made any comment at an RFC before, and if there's a format I'm supposed to follow, I haven't been able to pick up on it after reading through the above, so I apologize if I'm too informal here.

Well, I've read all of the above comments, but not the links. I've not gone to the links because I'm kinda familiar with Ed, and the type of complaints I'm reading about up there seem to be very believable. And I don't see Ed disputing the facts of the matter. So the Evidence is not all that critical. Procedure is. And the question is, is Ed a problem?

Well, first of all, let's talk about Ed. Is anyone claiming that he's intentionally acting in a way inimical to the interest of this project? Not as far as I can see. Indeed, I see the complaintants praising Ed's work as an editor, other than his proclivity for modifying fonts. So Ed is not a vandal to be silenced, we all agree on that.

So what is the problem? The beef appears to be that Ed feels that WP:IAR is a license to ignore standard style as the clear majority wants that style to be. And what damage does he cause by doing this? Well, probably the most significant thing is that Ed forces other editors to waste their time on the project overturning his personal mission edits. How big a deal is this? It's clearly an annoyance. But you know what? There are a lot more editors who disagree with Ed than there are Eds. And this consensus of editors has plenty of power to overturn EDits that they don't like. There is only one Ed, there are plenty of us who disagree, and if everyone just bit their tongue and reverted him, they'd spend less time doing those reverts than they do writing out diatribes about the splinter in their arse that they consider Ed to be. But does Ed cause any damage that hurts the readers of this encyclopedia? Not really, not if we're honest with ourselves.

But I still here the voices saying, "It doesn't matter if what he does is only a little thing—it's still wrong, and he should be stopped!" Well, when I was younger, I would have definately agreed with that statement. But I'm mostly gray now, and I've learned that one of the most precious things in the world is heartfelt, caring, dissent. I'm not talking here about those who enjoy destruction, I'm talking about that lonely voice that says, "Hey! You guys are all wrong! Listen to me!" I agree with John Stuart Mill that we should listen to the one man in the world who is the only one who holds his opinion, because if we do, who knows, we might still be convinced.

Ahh, but you say, no one is trying to silence Ed, he can argue his point all he wants on the talk pages. And that's quite true. But the fact is, probably less than 1% of the people who have ever visited Wikipedia are even aware of the existence of the talk pages, let alone read them, let alone, engage in a discussion. And those who do visit them are the ones who have already made their decree that Ed's policy is . . . well, wrong. Ed's only shot to begin making a change is to hope that some visitor to Wikipedia will actually notice that today this article looked like this, but yesterday it looked like that, and hope that they will investigate further. It's less than a one-in-a-thousand shot, but I value the exchange of ideas so much that I'm willing to pay the price for the annoyance of Ed and let him have it. You know, Wikipedia has the potential to be the singlemost democratic entity on the planet. Sanctioning Ed for doing what he is doing not only risks losing a valuable editor who has much to offer, but it also is antithetical to the freedom of expression that is vital for a democracy to thrive. In the end, I think, it really costs us very little to leave Ed alone. I think he and others like him are worth the price. And someday, each of us may be glad to have stood behind someone like Ed whom we felt was standing in our way. (Sorry, I know it's bad enough to mix metaphors in any event, but to do it with two using the same verb?! Someone shoot me, I don't deserve to write.)

Incidentally, I have engaged Ed in a dispute over boldfacing. When it was over and done with—after only a few exchanges—Ed yielded to my wishes. Having not read the diffs up there, I really can't say anything for sure, but I would speculate that at least one person took on a rather haughty tone with Ed, making the problem worse. I don't remember what I said to him, but I do remember that we worked things out calmly and civily. Hope everyone else can do this as well.

Bottom line: Don't sweat the small stuff. Unschool (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.