User talk:GordonWatts/Archive03


 * DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
 * DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
 * DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.


 * This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 08, 2005 and September 13, 2005.


 * Post replies to the main talk page, copying and pasting the section to which you are replying, if necessary. To post a reply, you merely click on the appropriate 'Edit' tab, and then you type in your comments and click on 'Save page' -unless, of course, you want to preview it first, in which case you would click on 'Show preview'. (See How to archive a talk page.)


 * Please add new archivals to User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom/Archive04. Thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

- Welcome to my page: -


 * Archives


 * 1) Archive 1:The approximately 66 kb archive of my first talk page.


 * 1) Archive 2:The 2nd archive of my first talk page is of unknown length, since the edit dialogue doesn't tell me the KB length, but it appears smaller than the 66 kb 1st archive.


 * 1) Archive 3:The 3rd archive of unknown length.



= Welcome to my talk page =

Please be aware that I may -or may not -check my page for messages. Email is an alternate, but not totally reliable, method of contact. Of course, more conventional methods of communication also exist, such as telephone calls, U.S. postal mail, visits, FAX transmissions, and the like. To my global neighbors, thank you for visiting, even if we have some disagreements on occasion. Take care,

-- G ordon W atts D ot C om 11:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

'''For additional contact data, please see User:GordonWattsDotCom.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

your comments on FuelWagon's talk page
You may want to tone down your rhetoric a little bit when dealing with FuelWagon - declaring your own edits as "unequivocably right" struck me as deliberately incendiary. Egging him on won't help you, since I'm tempted to protect Terri Schiavo now anyway and since admins get to exercise their own discretion on enforcing 3RR. - jredmond 00:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I answered you here. but reprinted it is:

In reply to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom&diff=20736285&oldid=20563690 "your comments on FuelWagon's talk page" - Thanks for your concern, Jredmond - I wasn't trying to egg on Wagon, but merely offer my support that his voice be heard, while striking a (balancing) tone to remind him (again after you commented) to be careful and avoid 3RR troubles. Please take note that I am open to listen to opposing feedback and give others credit when they have made good ideas. If the editors on that page can come to agreement, and I think that's near, then I would not want anyone blocked, because it would slow down their ability to offer input. Please also take note that I have tried to practice what I preach in attempting to fit in others' opinions and thoughts when editing.

I think that the Schiavo page (as well as most or ALL of Wikipedia.org) should be:


 * 1) Permanently protected
 * 2) Not edited unless editors actually go through a process like an editor applying for (say, for example) a New York Times web editor job -and have the editor post his mug and name online - and
 * 3) Have us poor blokes paid for our work

However, that is just my opinion. In spite of our "unreliability" reputation, the Schiavo article is number THREE in the world in Google.com, even ahead of the CNN.com site -due in part to the "open" nature of it -the same thing that prompted my three-point complaint/suggestions above. Thanks again for your concern; If I were rich and didn't have to worry about money, I'm try to edit here more often, lol.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * PS: Things seemed to have calmed down and worked out OK.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

User-uploaded images.
Image:GordonWatts.jpg, Image:GordonEnhancedPicRally.jpg, and Image:GordonThen.JPG all are missing copyright information. It would be helpful if you could do so. If you have any questions, please feel free to visit my talk page. Ral 315  04:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your answer: Good news for you - Freebie -They are my images -No one can deny me use of my own images, I would hope -in other words, I don't hope someone would try to get a copyright and then later tell me I can't use my own photo; however and nonetheless,...: I apply the same permissions here as on my other pages - See e.g., http://geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/legal.html or http://gordon_watts.tripod.com/legal.html

REPRINT:

LEGAL NOTICE for The Register : There are no trademarks, except where indicated. The Register gives permission to print out and copy any material from its site, with the one simple condition being that you give attribution, that is, say that it came from The Register, and give at least one --preferably more --link.

Additionally, FLORIDA STATUTES, Section 559.9335 (18) only prohibit promotion, advertising, or solicitation using a trademark, not private or educational use. US CODE TITLE 15, Chapter 22, (a)(1)(A) doesn't have a problem with nonprofit use such as this -- it only prohibits the use of others' trademarks in commerce type activities. Also, FLORIDA STATUTES, Section 1006.38 (10) and US CODE TITLE 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 allow use of copyrighted material for fair use. Moreover, the international Copyright Act, governing over 100 countries, allows "fair dealing," defined in the Act as copying works "for the purposes of private study, research criticism, review or newspaper summary". Don't forget the First Amendment, which protects: 1. Speech; 2. Press; 3. Assembly; 4. Redress; and, 5. Religion. Translation: it looks safe to copy anything for these purposes, but I disclaim being a lawyer. --Gordon W. Watts, Editor-in-Chief


 * First of all, I don't want to use your pictures for anything; however, Wikipedia requires some basic licensing information for pictures. This is why I'm asking.


 * I am not a lawyer, and I cannot give you advice on this legality. However, the best way to put it is to say that all submissions to Wikipedia are automatically assumed released under the GFDL license, which may be compatible with the above that you posted.  This means that the pictures you have uploaded must, at a minimum, be released under GFDL.  If you do not agree to this license, you cannot edit Wikipedia, in theory.  If you're looking for a legal interpretation of your license vs. GFDL, it's best to ask an admin, and they can help you.   Ral  315  04:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * One more thing: It's not necessarily considered OK for me to edit the images for you, since you're the copyright owner.  What you need to do is, click each image in question, click the "Edit this page" tab, and somewhere in the textbox, type  and then save the page.  This will take care of everything.  Thanks a lot.   Ral  315  05:33, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Terry Schiavo
I was about to correct a link on this page, but saw that you were engaged in a major edit. Could you correct the link Anamnesis to Medical history? Thanks. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed it - hope it is correct.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

categories sorted
This is for better overview. --ThomasK 13:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

apology
Gordon, I'm sorry for biting your head off last night about the "in use" tag. I took a look at your edits this morning and it looks like you did some serious heavy lifting. I don't understand why the featured article status thing requires those types of references (I personally don't like having the text and the URL separated from each other), but if that's what's needed, then you brought the article a lot closer to getting FA. Two people who never worked on the article have now waltzed in, put in the "in use" tag, and basically damaged the article. So, I guess I'm a little sensitive whenever I see someone put that tag up. Anyway, good job on the references thing. FuelWagon 13:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. You are a bigger person than some I meet, to admit we all make mistakes. I agree that the format was fine the way before, but it does "look prettier" this way, where you have the full data in text form alongside a link, like showing the author, title, and date stuff. I haven't checked in tonight yet, but at least we are getting the "positive" attention of the great "wiki spirits," if you know what I mean.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Images on the Terri Schiavo article
While I did not file an objection over the images (just a comment), I wish to tell you what exactly Carnildo is looking for. One the first set of images he mentioned, he wants the editors/uploaders of the images to explain why we have to use this photo. If there is no "public domain" photo, then explain that. Also explain the copyright of the photo (taken by X, released by Y, Copyright foo-bar by Z group). That's it. If you find a photo which has been released under a free license (public domain, GFDL, CC). The second photo he talked about, Terri's grave, it can be replaced by another photo with a free license. What he means is that if a person who lives close to that cemetery can go out, take a photo of the grave and upload it under the GFDL license. That will replace the Fair Use photo. Basically, what Carnildo is trying to get at is that we should avoid fair use images as much as we can, but if we have to, we have to explain why. We are facing problems with fair use images, since people are abusing the process. I know you are not, but I am just explaining to you what is going on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, until you or others fix the objection, I will (and have) vote object to the article becoming a FA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote count is unecessary
Please note that FAC is more about building consensus than voting. Raul will discount all ridiculous objections, so you don't have to worry about that crazy objection by silverback, for instance. To get an FA, you have to convince Raul that all reasonable objections have been taken care of. Vote pretty much doesn't matter, even though the mark is technically 80%. My last FAC (Carl Friedrich Gauss) had a 7-0 vote, but Raul still refused to promote it untill I fixed an objection he thought was valid. (The guy who brought it up didn't even vote object; he just left a comment). I think Camildo's objection summarizes most that is wrong with the article. The prose isn't THAT good, and they may be more fair use images than necessary. Borisblue 18:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, but since I contributed to much of the other sections of the article, I expect someone else to address the copyright issues. That's not my specialty. Maybe, I'll catch a second wind and look into it, but don;t count on me: Those who raise the objection are expected to be the first to solve the problem, hint, hint.
 * I saw this comment, and i want to note, if you want it to be featured then as nominator you will have to deal with it. This objection Raul cannot ignore. Surely you can send someone in florida out to the graveyard and take that photo? Borisblue 15:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo and World War I
Hi Gordon, I realize that an article on a person's life history is a bit different than one for WWI, but I figured that the WWI article (a featured article, BTW) might be a good example of how extremely complex subject matter can be comprehensive yet not overwhelming, through the use of a few (but not too many) sub-articles. FWIW, I thought everything through "Petition to Remove Feeding Tube" was very good and needs very few changes -- it's from "...Schiavo I" forward that I got lost. Also, since I'm here, I think the page numbers of the references you (or the collective you, since I'm not sure who did this) used belong where the other references are at the bottom - it's almost redundant as is since there are footnotes pointing to the source anyway, and it messes with the word flow. Good luck, I think it would be really cool to have it as an FA, and I hope to vote support in the near future. Have a good weekend. justsomechick · chat · stuff 19:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the "scroll bars" for both articles looked about the same, with Terri's scroll bar actually being a tad longer, hinting that her word count is less. Hold on a sec, whilst I ask Microsoft WOKKS Word processor for a word count.


 * WWI is: 9493, not counting the “Wiki” text unrelated to the article WWI is 9652 total words on page. (There were 159 extra "wiki advertisement links, like the stuff on the top row and left column.)
 * Terri Schiavo is: 10,978, not counting "wiki text" comments/links, etc., like above, and is 11,091, total. (There were 113 "non-Schiavo" words, as above.)
 * OK, good point, but all said and done, Terri's article is not even fifteen-percent (15%) larger. No big deal. Next concern...?

(Gordon's math notepad: 11,092 / 9,652 = 1.14908827186 = 114.9% = 14.9% increase < 15% increase = Good!) --GordonWattsDotCom 09:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * ADDITIONAL COMMENTS on Just Some Chick's POST:
 * "through the use of a few (but not too many) sub-articles." Already covered. We have several sub-articles at present time. "FWIW, I thought everything through "Petition to Remove Feeding Tube" was very good and needs very few changes" A collective "Thank you" to you! "it's from "...Schiavo I" forward that I got lost." Sorry. It happens to the best of us, if we've been reading and get fatigue. "Also, since I'm here, I think the page numbers of the references you (or the collective you, since I'm not sure who did this) used belong where the other references are at the bottom - it's almost redundant as is since there are footnotes pointing to the source anyway, and it messes with the word flow." Well, I am the one who did that, and some feel that page numbers are needed at each juncture, so putting them at the bottom may be worse, since there are several sentences for each reference-note at the bottom, and each sentence may have a different page number -but that is just my opinion on the style used. I like it for how it "verifies" the page number too! "Good luck, I think it would be really cool to have it as an FA, and I hope to vote support in the near future." Thanks. "Have a good weekend." And you too and the other editors here as well.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII
I started an RfC on Pope Pius XII. You are invited to comment. patsw 23:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No prob
The image looks fine now - thanks for the heads-up! -- RyanFreisling @ 05:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
Hi, Gordon. Congratulations on taking and uploading those photos. I see you've added one to the article. I'm going to bed now, but will have another look in the morning. Thanks for taking the trouble. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

my sign
Um, your spelling my signature wrong. Its not Nichapl; its Nichalp. The sign-text is a combination of a few words of my name and surname. Thanks. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  14:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Its not a problem, happens to me too. I saw it twice that's why I decided to message you. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Logged and noted; Thx for the reply, Nichalp.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Making external links without the arrow
Hello again, Gordon. I've noticed when editing articles here that if I am linking to a Wikipedia article and I type it (in the edit box) like this Jane Austen, it appears on the edited page as Jane Austen. You can tell that it's something to click on – but it looks nice.

If I link to something that isn't a Wikipedia article, and I type it like this BBC News it appears on the edited page as BBC News, with an arrow sticking up at the end. I don't think it looks nice.

I noticed recently that you had managed to make an external link at the top of your talk page, without producing the arrow. I pressed "edit", so that I could examine the code, but, since it included boxes and colours, it was too complicated for me to see simply what I should do if I want to link to an external website without producing that arrow.

For example, my userpage says:
 * I would love to study Latin and Greek properly some time, perhaps by doing a course with the Open University.

The words "Latin", "Greek", and "Open University" are linked nicely, because the link is to a Wikipedia article. The word "course" has the arrow, because it links to a page on the Open University website rather than on Wikipedia. Any ideas on how to get rid of the arrow?

By the way, thanks for mentioning to me recently about not putting two spaces before a full stop. Ann Heneghan (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I have a feeling it would be too complicated for me – especially at the moment, when I'm rather busy. By the way, you may not have noticed, as changes to user pages (as opposed to user talk pages) do not bring up a "you have new messages" box on the screen, but I gave you a barnstar earlier today for the trouble you took in photographing the grave and the hospice. It's a good idea to keep your user page on you watchlist, in case someone vandalizes it. NCdave's user page was vandalized three times. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Stable?
Hey, Gordon, is the Schiavo article really stable? I checked the history and noticed several edits made in the past day or two by you and Anne Heneghan. It'd be great if all the POV stuff was settled ASAP, else it might hurt a future FAC bid. Borisblue 03:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There about 30 edits in the past week. I was wondering if the POV issues were settled. There's no way WP will pass an FAC with an ongoing dispute. As for when I'll nom it, I won't wait that long. Most of the concerns brought up in the last FAC seem to have been addressed, and I'll probably get to it next weekend. Borisblue 03:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Noted and received. I answered on your talk page some time ago, but I'm posting a note here in case you look here first and also as a courtesy to the casual passer-by.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So, as I see the article and talk page now after some time elapsed, I see stuff that was negotiated in good faith during March through June was simply added back or removed during its multiple reorganizations. This "eating disorder" thing really bothers me:  The autopsy did not find the characteristic scarring of the esophagus and stomach of bulimia.  Yet Terri had an eating disorder so extreme that it killed her according to this speculation.  Since FuelWagon has no response based on facts and reason, he baited me with the speculation that Terri was the victim of an assault by Michael.  According to FW, it wasn't his intent to bait me, he's just got a unique way of showing the civility he demands from other editors.  The "End of life" nonsense persists in the article as well because the court documents mistakenly referred to it. patsw 23:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't mind Wagon's baiting -it's just his way of "saying hello," and expressing a point: He's "harmless," as far as that goes; nonetheless, due to the nature of "wiki," there is an inherent lack of stability, so past agreements and concensus are easily tossed, as if to imply it's OK to break past concensus, like one breaks the law.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR Violation at Terri Schiavo
Gordon, after reviewing the edit history carefully, I can see that you most definitely violated WP:3RR today at Terri Schiavo. These are the edits in question:
 * First revert
 * Second revert
 * Third revert
 * Fourth revert

Normally, this is grounds for an automatic twenty-four hour ban; however, in this case I feel it would be counter-productive, as you need to be able to edit the Terri Schiavo talk page in order to sort out the differences that you're having with User:FuelWagon and User:RN. I have protected the article for now, and I would like to see some civil, good faith attempts at compromise with those other users. Please don't make me regret my leniency in this case. Leave me a talk page message if you have any questions.

Please note, I am not interested in taking sides on this issue. My only desire is to see a consensus formed and I will enforce that consensus, whatever it may be. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I looked that the diffs in question, and the first one was a simple (but "contentious") edit, and the second one was in the spirit of a revert, but I didn't technically use the revert tool (by clicking on an older version), as you can see as an admin.


 * However, while I don't feel I violated the letter of the law, I feel I either violated or came very close to violating the spirit of the law, the higher standard that I (and others) have long ago set.


 * The reason I even made the first edit was to improve the quality of the paragraph -and set it up for the second edit, adopting an older version that FuelWagon had not liked; he wanted a source to address the "atypical" language I chose to use, and I gave him that source. So, it (the 2nd "revert") was not "technically" a revert, but I did use a "version" of a prior edit, but with modifications to make Wagon happy. The 3rd and 4th edits were certainly reversions, as I indicated in my talk posts. I was getting frustrated with POV-pusher, such as Wagon, and asked for help. Thank you for any assistance you can give, Fernando.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordon, I replied on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thx. I answered, as saved in this 00:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC) "permanent link" diff on your talk page.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordon, I've weighed in on the Terri Schiavo disagreement here. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordon, FW holds the high cards again: The court's POV rules the day.  They ignored the restriction on non-terminal patients entering a hospice especially one where Schiavo and Felos had so much direct influence. patsw 03:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Grace Note's last add to the talk page is exactly what I'm talking about: the court's POV is going to be the article's POV -- facts which the court overlooked just aren't facts in FW's domain because the court defines what's a fact and what's overlooked as insignificant. I hope some investigative reporters will eventually get at what really happened and write about it.  patsw 03:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Logged, noted, and addressed, Pat.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordon, has a question of weight that's arisen in the Terri Schiavo article ever been resolved contrary to Michael Schiavo's POV by Fuel Wagon? The first week or so editing there I noticed the utter predictability of the so-called neutrality advocates of the editing cabal.  One didn't need to know much beyond whether it helped or hurt Michael's position in public opinion to know how they would decide any editing dispute. patsw 22:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Gordon, has a question of weight that's arisen in the Terri Schiavo article ever been resolved contrary to Michael Schiavo's POV by Fuel Wagon?" Don't know, but Wagon sometimes bends and compromises & does what is right. Come and vote on our dispute.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
For the info. Iago Dali 22:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's right: here, I mentioned about talk pages v. front pages. (I had to look for that in the "my contributions" at the top, right.) No problemo. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 22:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo
Gordon, I've just removed your nomination of Terri Schiavo from FAC. You'd have to archive the previous nomination first and begin on a clean slate. Details are given on the FAC page on how to archive. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  06:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordon, 1) no, I didn't have to use any admin powers. 2) I can't take away your right to nominate the article. 3) I (or anyone else) can remove it though if it is not correctly formatted and message the original author. Personally, I don't see the hurry in nominating the article so soon. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * No doubt the iron is hot, but so is the object sentiment. Would you consider removing (or at least changing the display of) the "You have new messages" on top. Its very confusing. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed the joke -it was funny while it lasted, but it may offend those who are visiting my page, and that is not good when I'm trying to represent the hard work of fellow-editors in re my Fac nomination. Thx for observing this.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

On the question of the legality of not-at-risk-death-Terri's move to the hospice where the terminally ill only go to die, I think Fuel Wagon is moving the goalposts: This is where an adverse editor demands a cite, and you provide one, and then there's another problem (awkward phrasing, relevance, possible duplication, the article is too long) and when that problem is fixed, there's yet another problem, and try as hard as you can, there will always be something else your adverse editor will find which is objectionable to him or her about your verifiable, factual, and significant edit.

The underlying problem is that any evidence which remains in the article that Greer unfairly favored Michael Schiavo and Felos with credibility and ignored the Schindlers on all matters at the court's discretion means that the rest of the judicial system which resisted a de novo review of Greer's findings is also complicit in ordering the death by dehydration of Terri Schiavo. patsw 03:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to spend too much time weighing in on your post, but I do want to acknkowledge it; it does seem the goalposts move when someone gets close to addressing a concern requested, huh. Hmm...--GordonWattsDotCom 03:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Gordon. Just a quick thought WRT the Terri Schiavo disagreement. I think the RfC is working; certainly some new faces have popped up on the talk page. User:Kingturtle pointed out that they were having trouble following the flow of discussion on the talk page, and I can definitely see where they're coming from. You and FuelWagon have understandably gotten into the habit of writing for each other and not for a broader audience (a good example of what I mean). It would definitely facilitate the RfC if you both made an effort to keep in mind that other users are going to be getting involved now. I also think that you are getting a little short-tempered. In particular, I don't think that this comment where you tried to discern a motivation behind FuelWagon's actions was helpful in any way. I understand that you're frustrated, Gordon, but please try to maintain decorum. Thanks, Fernando Rizo T/C 11:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

edit templates
Thanks, i am new here :) but i found out yesterday that the template was te reason i have not been able to change the text myselfe, but as per now some others took care so it was solved before i could solve it myselfe. thanks again (Wilhelm.peter 08:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC))
 * No problem. You're welcome.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

your comments to me
I have responded to your comments on my talk page. - Bantman 04:13, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

WP:FAC
Please don't revert-war on Featured article candidates. You are coming close to violating the three-revert rule. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Re that, I've archived my talk page, including the discussion re this FAC. I will keep the TS talk page on my watchlist, so I'd appreciate any comments staying there or here and I'll respond to them that way. I've made a few comments on the TS talk page that I think are important, so I hope they aren't missed because I made separate edits. Your consideration there would be appreciated. - Taxman Talk 12:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon's talk page
Thanks for your help, Gordon, but I took care of the move before you added your comment (see the timestamp in the history). You can remove your comments from FW's talk page as they duplicate the comments already moved. Actually, I'll go ahead and remove your comments, since they imply that the move was not done correctly when in fact it was -- three minutes prior to your posted comments. The move was originally noted on User talk:Joshuaschroeder. --Viriditas | Talk 09:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
For reverting the vandalism to my talk page. I do appreciate it. Fernando Rizo T/C 11:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I had you page on my watchlist after the Schiavo dispute; PS: It was funny to tell Willy on Wheels he had a flat!--GordonWattsDotCom 11:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Page size
You probably saved the page with the HTML code. Save the text of the page only: When you click the edit button on top, it generates the text of the entire page. Copy that, then paste and save as a .txt file. =Nichalp  «Talk»=

Talk clarification
You asked me to clarify two days ago what I meant by: "I do broadly agree with FuelWagon's criticisms of your behaviour here (even if I don't agree with the insinuation that you have to have dealt with minute details to have a fair opinion)." My inital commentary on Terri Schiavo talk had been about general organization and structure and FualWagon seemed to imply one had to have a long term involvement with minute edits to have a fair opinion—I was simply objecting to this.

Also, I'm going to second Taxman's assertion that the disputed commentary simply be stricken for the sake of moving forward; the page can't be hold hostage over one line. I'm also going to suggest that you and FuelWagon make a good faith promise not to edit that section (not the article itself) for a few days. Marskell 18:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Message received; Thanks. I will consider over your suggestions.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I couldn't misrepesent you because I didn't purport to repesent you at all. I supported the idea the paragraph be taken out. That's all. Marskell 08:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I responded at this exact diff on your talk page, Marskall. I apologize if I mis-read your mind; I'm having a bad-hair day in this regards.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"Is waiting on you..." "Your lack of action is holding the article hostage -not me..." "We can't wait for you forever..."

I was fucking asleep. It's something I do eight out of every 24 hours. I'm sorry Gordon but not all of us organize our schedules around the Wikipedia Terri Schiavo page. Please do not respond on my user talk and do not leave me messages anymore. Marskell 09:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * After the Schiavo page has been locked for almost a week, I'd say that this eight-hour period is not relevant -or a good excuse for your delays; so, my request for participation is not particularly extraordinary or offensive, but I'm sorry that you feel so abused. Is there anything else we can do to make you feel less abused? If Wikipedia is this stressful, maybe you ought to rearrange your priorities, and not put up with this abuse from any other human: You deserve more.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit on Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost is not a soapbox, a talk page, or a forum for gauging consensus. It is a news source. Please do not add anything about Terri Schiavo and its FAC request; it's unnecessary in the article. Ral 315  01:31, September 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not gauging or measuring public opinion -I am reporting facts; See your talk.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm a 15-year-old college sophomore, not that it matters. Age means nothing on wiki.  Secondly, I am the editor of the Wikipedia Signpost; as in, I publish the paper every week.  User:The wub wrote that particular article, but I'm "in charge" of the paper, as far as that goes.  I reverted because I feel your insert was inappropriate in the article.  Thirdly, the Wikipedia Signpost is not a place to post all news and FACs.  If someone wanted to vote on your FAC, they would find it on the FAC page, or follow the link that was already there.  The point of the Signpost is not to let every user advertise their particular FAC on; if it were so, there'd be 30-40 articles a week, and most of them would lack in content.  So, I respect your opinion, but what's there about the Terri Schiavo is good, and NPOV.   Ral  315  01:42, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, but I'm afraid I've got to go with Ral315 on this. Signpost articles don't tend to get edited/updated after they've been put up, except for glaring errors and typos. It's just the way it works. Nor is it really fair for you to add your appeals to them. RfC is the way to get attention for the voting. Good luck on getting the article featured! the wub  "?/!"  09:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Thanks for bringing it to my attention..." No problemo, Editor/Writer, Wub. Y'all are in charge and at large, so best of luck on your paper.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA
Thanks for the comment - as it happens, I was reinstating that and other text that was there before User:Tony1 pruned it earlier today (this diff shows the text before and after all of the changes, and the diff of my changes shows that I made a few other changes at the same time).

Sorry, but I have enough to be getting on with without entering into the debate on Talk:Terri Schiavo. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Thanks for the comment -..." You're welcome. Thanks for the effort and for your other contributions.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo
Thanks for your invitation to participate. I'm afraid I haven't been following the discussions too closely and haven't read the article in detail, so it would be inappropriate for me to vote or to pass further judgment at this time. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:36, September 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Thanks for your invitation to participate..." You're welcome; Thank you for your good intentions.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)