A few days ago, Gareth Owen wrote to Ed Poor:

...

No. You called for William Connolley's edits to be reverted.

Jimbo then responded:

In the interests of accuracy, Ed said absolutely no such thing. He's very supportive of those edits, in fact, and has additionally suggested that it would be appropriate to cite Connolley as a source.

Since Jimbo is interested in accuracy, he should review the revision history for the SEPP article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=SEPP&action=history

I think it's obvious from even a cursory review that Ed has *not* been supportive of Connolley's edits. I'm flabbergasted that Jimbo cites Ed's interest in "citing Connolley as a source" as evidence of how "supportive" Ed has been. Take a look, for example, at Ed's edit on 18:39, 24 Nov 2003, when Ed actually *did* revise the article to "cite Connolley as a source." Here's Ed's comment on that edit: "attributing your POV to you, Dr. Connolley - you've finally stepped over that line I warned you about."

Does that sound "supportive" to you, Jimbo?

Sheesh!