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