>I don't want to pick on Ed Poor, because I'm sure there are other
>examples I could use. But I think Ed Poor believes a lot of false
>things. I'm sure he thinks that I believe a lot of false things.
>Maybe I think he's a nut. Maybe he thinks I'm a nut.
>
>Fair enough, but he and I are both polite and reasonable, and I find
>it hard to envision a situation where we couldn't agree on what an
>encyclopedia article should say.
What higher praise could one get? "Polite, reasonable nut". I like that :-)
But seriously, isn't there any way to configure the software so that Helga could contribute only when logged in? That is, ban her IP address, but not her user ID (if you know what I mean)?
Mav and others have told me that Helga's been a thorn in the project's side for a year. But I think the way you've responded has been inflammatory. No offense meant.
Instead of hitting her over the head verbally with phrases like "she's at it again" and "removed NPOV text" -- why not take a more low-key approach? It's working for me in the Arab-Israeli conflict articles:
"Removed to talk" -- concise, unemotional: clearly the text hasn't disappeared but will be found on the talk page in a moment.
"According to ..."
"Some advocates claim ..."
"Although most scholars believe X ..."
The above 3 phrases deftly inserted into the article text work wonders. *sigh* if only Larry were still here.
Ed Poor