User talk:GordonWatts/Archive06


 * 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 November 05, 2005 and February 21, 2007.


 * 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/Archive07. Thank you.--GordonWatts 04:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:MeleAffidavit.pdf
Thanks for uploading Image:MeleAffidavit.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:PondInFrontOfSchiavoGrave.pdf listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PondInFrontOfSchiavoGrave.pdf, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:GordonThen.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GordonThen.JPG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:SylvanAbbeyThroughChevyMonteCarloWindow.pdf listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SylvanAbbeyThroughChevyMonteCarloWindow.pdf, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Fritz S. (Talk) 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:WalkwaySchiavoGrave.pdf listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:WalkwaySchiavoGrave.pdf, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Fritz S. (Talk) 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:SchiavoHeadstoneAndGrave.pdf listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SchiavoHeadstoneAndGrave.pdf, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Fritz S. (Talk) 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Gordon, I just wanted to ask for some clarification on your comment on Talk:James Kim. I certainly agree that what happened and when in regards to his death is important, but what do you feel calling it a timeline and bulleting it would provide something that the current section doesn't already James_Kim. The individual days are already longer than I think a timeline entry would be, so are you saying there should be a timeline section in addition to that section?--Crossmr 16:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a note, the scope of the straw poll has been clarified as there seemed to be some confusion over what was meant by support of the timeline.--Crossmr 17:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gordon, I just want to make sure we're absolutely clear on what everyone is supporting here.--Crossmr 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gordon, regarding your "Support" on this page, my comment to that was that the timeline is not part of the story, as you suggested, but rather it is an editor's after-the-fact formatting of the story. Since your basis for "Support" was the idea that the timeline was "part of the story," if you feel you were mistaken can you return to the page and change your vote? Thanks, Tragic romance 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo
Enough with your attempts to sneak in a "North Country Gazette" link. Apparently you feel being dishonest in a cause you believe is okay: it's not. After all, how good a cause can it be if it requires dishonesty on your part? Stop it. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not put that link in; It was someone else under an anonymous IP address. Are you now accusing me of using a sock-puppet? That is a pretty heavy accusation, Cal, and I don't think you've lost all your sense, so go and find it before it loses you.


 * Here. Don't waste my time, either with your content-free arguments or false sincerity. And the name is "Calton": only my friends get to call me "Cal", Gordy-boy. --Calton | Talk 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Calton posted the following
...to my user page, not my talk page here:

'but you are making a false accusation regarding that link

Wrong, period/full stop. That diff has your name on it. You did it. Don't lie. Take responsibility for your actions. Again, don't waste my time and insult my intelligence by cranking out long-winded excuses. --Calton | Talk 21:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

{Note: End of quote from Calton's post--GordonWatts 10:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)}

Note: I posted the following
...to my talk page, as described here:

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms

per

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/editcount_optin.cgi?user=GordonWatts&dbname=enwiki_p

which said:

If you are GordonWatts, this page will allow you to enable the display of the extra edit count information. If you would like to make this edit count information for your account visible, make a dummy edit * to User talk:GordonWatts, and copy and paste this as the edit summary:

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms Then come back and reload this page to verify that everything worked. (it should work immediately)

Opting out To opt-out or have only specific features turned on, ping User talk:Interiot or Special:Emailuser/Interiot.


 * Not a null edit. You should see a new line in your history created like this

posting in the middle
I was going to move my post down to the bottom, but then I saw that you posted just after it. You are right that one can look at the history to find the latest posts. Maybe that is the best way to do it....

You can delete this. I didnt want to fill up the talk page with this comment.. Martin | tk 04:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good reminder; I shall take the last few comments that didn't make it into the archive -and put them there -and then respond on your page--GordonWatts 09:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediplex
Mediplex seems to have vanished from the internet. I posted some old pictures of their sites in the talk page I believe. The first sites of them I saw were outpatient, and hardly "specializing in brain injury" as is sometimes claimed. One other site looks like an inpatient facility, but I am skeptical of the treatment that she received there. This site has good info. Do you know what happened to Mediplex? Do you have Skype? Martin | tk 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No - I tried Skype once and it crashed I vaguely seem to recall; I have unlimited long-distance currently, and I can call you or vice-versa if email if not fast enough.--GordonWatts 09:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A comment from User:Calton on my talk page
Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence Terri Schiavo. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking2. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll answer on my own talk page, since you are monitoring it; I am trying to get input and seek consensus. I am not telling anyone how to vote, and, with only one exception, I left messages only on talk pages of editors who have recently edited the main Terri page since Christmas of 2006, not a whole lot of people.


 * Are you afraid people will find out about your rude behaviour -or perhaps your failure to adhere to Wikipedia policy? The darkness doesn't like to find out that the light is shining on it.--GordonWatts 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You write: ...ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand." In case you didn't notice, the editors I contacted were actively involved in the editing of the page. To contact just any editor would be a big waste of time for all parties. Think before you post, OK? No offense meant, but that post was just plain stupid: You might want to NOT use a template or pre-written post before proof-reading it, lol.--GordonWatts 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll answer on my own talk page, since you are monitoring it You best get a refund on those mindreading lessons, because they're not working.


 * You get one point for humour here and another for good grammar, punctuation, and spelling.--GordonWatts 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am trying to get input and seek consensus...Are you afraid people will find out about your rude behaviour. No, precisely the opposite: that you're looking for people who have been hitherto unexposed to your long history of intellectual dishonesty, self-promotion, POV pushing, and unsufferably smug -- and yet misplaced -- sense of rectitude. I notice you avoided contacting any experienced or long-term editors -- presumably because you already know what they'll tell, what some have in fact ALREADY told you.


 * "I notice you avoided contacting any experienced or long-term editors -- presumably because you already know what they'll tell, what some have in fact ALREADY told you." WRONG. I contacted every editor -without exception -who had edited on the main Terri Schiavo page since Christmas 2006, even though I assume some of them do not stand in my corner: No, I am not unfair; Plus, 2 of the editors I contacted are long-term editors, namely Pat Sweeny (Patsw) and Musical Linguist.--GordonWatts 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * that post was just plain stupid Nope, that post was plain accurate: you clearly didn't bother checking what the users' actual contributions were when you posted, as this edit makes plain: see the great big warning across the top?


 * We all make mistakes, but I was big enough to catch my mistake *and* to admit to it *and* to fix it. Are you the same way?--GordonWatts 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Think before you post, OK? You first. That would be a refreshing change. --Calton | Talk 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton
Don't give up just yet. There is two seperate conversations going on about Calton...one, a RfC here and another an arbitration here. Why not add your current situation with Calton to one or both of those. The more people who let their voices be heard the better the chance that Calton might get his tune changed. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a soul mate for you, Gordon, someone as equally clueless about Wikipedia policy.


 * And speaking of not knowing Wikipedia policy -- or simple directions, as seen at the top of Wikipedia talk:Village pump:


 * This page is for discussion about the village pump only. You may want one of the village pump subpages below, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.


 * --Calton | Talk 17:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The second one is an arbitration between him and DeanHinnen on "Free Republic". Not sure what it is about. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Gordon. I'd like to support you because I always find it painful to see a situation where everyone seems to be against one person. But I've looked at your links, and I do think you have a conflict of interest and that they don't fit in with all the WP:VER, WP:EL, WP:RS policies or guidelines that I have been reading. Also, I think it's a really bad idea to call someone else's edit "vandalism" in a content dispute. Vandalism is when someone changes the image of Pope Benedict to Michael Jackson, inserts dirty words into articles, blanks large sections, or deliberately inserts false information (like Adolf Hitler was born in 1482). It's not vandalism when someone removes a link on the grounds that it's not reliable, regardless of how long that link has been there. Please give up this fight, because I have a feeling it will get very painful for you if you don't. ElinorD 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've decided an even better route: To NOT fight at all, but rather to let the Lord fight my battle - I've made my case, and I trust God to let the chips fall where they may: I've followed the proper protocol on how to address this matter, and that, in and of itself, is a positive result.--GordonWatts 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your expertise
From your edit summary:

asking how my paper is any different than the many "johhny One Note" blogs and papers whose editors have no expertise in the given area - like me

Calling your Geocities website a "paper" is, of course, false in every meaning or synonym of the word, but the latter half of your summary is certainly true: you, as you admit, have have no expertise in the given area.

You'll also note that your attempt to make this about me instead of the inappropriateness of your edits isn't working, so perhaps you ought to drop it. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I must have made a typo: What I meant to say was that I have more expertise than them in the given area, since I have actually been involved in the case, whereas most of them have not. So, you have not addressed how all those other links are better than mine; I picked 3 links, and only 1 is an actual paper (The Akron link), and only 1 other have people who were involved with personal expertise (Terri's Fight), so where's your argument to keep them and boot my paper? How is my paper (or whatever you want to call it) worse than all 3 of those links?--GordonWatts 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * :I must have made a typo... Nope, at best a Freudian slip.
 * How is my paper (or whatever you want to call it) worse than all 3 of those links? Asked and answered several times. Plugging your ears and saying "MAMAMAMAMAMAI'MNOTLISTENINGMAMAMAMA" doesn't change that. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved your complaint, still active?
I moved your complaint at the Village Pump talk page to here (the complaint about Carlton and Schiavo related articles). Is this still a problem? If not please make a note at the link provided. Thank you.--Kchase T 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problemo - I didn't know the best place to post it, and it might get more attention there, anyhow. Thanks!--GordonWatts 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A succinct rebuttal to Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case
--Calton | Talk 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it will act like CPR and get Terri back to life.--GordonWatts 07:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia's reliability
In a recent dispute, I was voted down 6.0 to 2.5 (long explanation about the half a vote thing)

While I don't like losing the vote (the voting is used to mathematically determine the consensus, since no other logical means exists), nonetheless, I am mature and accept the outcome, but I got in the last word -right or wrong -on the matter (at least, it is the last word, as of this writing). Observe:

On both the page where the dispute broke out and here on the main talk page, I point out that many feel that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source and cite these argumentative editors as part of the reason. I could be wrong, but often times editors disagreeing with me will make generalized assumption (like Geocities or AOL or blog links are not reliable) -and not look at actual policy. Not all editors just babble; some of them make good points, and I concede I am wrong on a few points (such as my erroneous suggestion that Terri's Fight did not have special status when in fact policy does make exceptions to links from the actual participants).

OK, what I really don't like about this wiki is how many people often don't adhere to actual guidelines but sort of make up excuses for their edits; People making a case should use the actual policy as it is written to make your case; opinions don't count here.

I get in the last word on Schiavo link dispute: Many people don't consider Wikipedia itself reliable -so what was that again about those links not being reliable,...--GordonWatts 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gordon
Hi. It ought to be clear, by now, that consensus is pretty set against the inclusion of your websites as external links on the Terri Schiavo article(s). You are both very knowledgeable and very committed about the topic, and I do not want to see this effort wasted.

However, your current activity, repeating the same points over and over, is becoming disruptive, and it's starting to exhaust everyone's patience. I don't want to see this happen - can we accept that the links will stay out for now, and you aim your energies in a more productive direction?

There's a lot of effort being wasted by numerous editors continually stating 'no, the links should not go back in'; I'm aware Patsw believes they should be reinstated, but 2 in favour and 7+ against doesn't look good for the links.

Try and edit in a different for a little while. Instead of wasting all that splendid, intelligent, and ultimately fruitless effort on fighting over those links, go find an article on somethig that interets you that is not as good as it could be, and improve it. There's plenty of work that could be done on topics relating to Terri Schiavo (such as euthanasia, assisted death, right to life, etc) that could do with some referencing and expansion. You're great at asking for suggestions on talk pages about changes, but I have noticed you sometimes do ignore what others are saying and make your point over and over and over and over ... this tends to make people more implacable, not less.

I don't want this message to come across as patronising, I'm trying to nip this in the bud, because I think Wikipedia is a better place with people of your energy and willingness to do the legwork, but if things go on the current course, I see problems looming with RFCs, arb com and the like. Just think about it, ok? Best, Proto   ►  12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your analysis, Proto; You are quite correct that I would offend others if I kept it up, but I feel that the standards are arbitrarily applied (not just on links to my site, but, as you have noticed, regarding other links used as sources). It is lopsided in the consensus, and I accept the consensus, even if I don't agree with it. (You saw my statements to that effect in my message above, I trust, where I am mature and polite and accept the concensus.) However, since this issue is about a broader issue regarding the citing of sources on the whole, I felt that the examples I outlined in the talk pages about a deletionist slant to be a point worth review.


 * Although I am very irritated that some others don't see it my way on all issues, my plans to edit much less are simply because I am busy with other things. I certainly don't want to have any hard feelings with any editors if and when I decide to take a Wikibreak here shortly, not even those with whom I have disagreed, such as Calton, for example.


 * Well, thank you for writing back. A lot of work is out there to do on Wikipedia, but real life also has a lot of work for us. I hope that sets your mind to ease. After all, it is just one online encyclopedia; I think the worst that could happen to us now is a lawsuit against Wikipedia by some nut that thinks he was slandered, but I certainly hope Wikipedia can avoid any ill fortune like that. (I have done my part to contribute and avoid these type problems.) Others will have to figure it out in the future if and when I do indeed cut back on my editing; Best of luck and blessings to you all.--GordonWatts 12:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh. Disputes with editors intent on adding links to their own sites is one of the more common causes of friction.  It's not personal, people just don't like it.  Pressing things only ever makes it worse.  Guy (Help!) 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable and to be expected.--GordonWatts 12:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gordon, I'd like to say that I agree with Proto, and I think he expressed it very well. I'd like to see an end to this dispute, because, quite frankly, you're not going to get consensus for the inclusion of those links, but I'd like to think that this could blow over and that you could do some valuable work at other articles
 * Normally, I'd agree, but I don't have all the time in the world, and this job doesn't pay much -to edit here for free at wikipedia, lol...
 * (perhaps articles that you don't have such strong feelings about).
 * There are advantages to editing on articles like that; you're less biased and more objective, but on the other hand, it is boring; It is STILL possible to be biased but correct, isn't it? Fun that way sometimes, LASTLY, I may be pro-life biased on Terri Schiavo, but I still try to be fair (like including links and arguments to the opposing side, you know), but remember, I know a lot about the Terri Schiavo matter; I DON'T know a lot about, say, rocket science, no matter HOW much college I have had, so I think you can't always say it's best to avoid articles where you're interested, just be careful.
 * I'm sorry I wasn't able to agree with you on this. I will tell you that I was personally very much opposed to the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, although that doesn't absolve me in any way from the responsibility of following what I believe to be Wikipedia policies. I'm active on other pages, and I'm finding that blogs and personal websites are being ruthlessly removed, with the instruction to find the same information elsewhere, or leave it out.
 * EXACTLY! That's the problem I predicted would happen. I can correctly say "I told you so" to those who cut the article up like a pot roast.
 * After you recover from your surprise, it actually seems a good idea. ElinorD (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No surprise here! I would have guessed you to be pro-life, based on the fact that you insisted people treat each other politely and avoid personal attacks. Now, you're surprised that I'm not, aren't you? He heh...--GordonWatts 12:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As promised
Community_noticeboard --Calton | Talk 13:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey There
Just wanted to let you know that there are alot of people out there defending you and strongly opposing Calton's request for a community ban against you and you are winning 8 to 2. Hang in there, don't even go near a Terry Schiavo related page, let the smoke blow over and it will all turn out for the good. Hang in there dude, people are in your corner on this community ban thing. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
Having looked at some of the talk pages where some controversy has erupted, I have some ideas on what may help resolve the dispute. First, stop trying to promote yourself as an expert here on Wikipedia -it's irrelevant. There's a whole internet out there you can do this on, just keep it off Wikipedia. Also, you say you're not editing Schiavo-related pages, but you're still arguing on their talk pages. Why? Wouldn't it be better to just drop it? The alleged conflict of interest is a very serious issue. If there's ample evidence that you're here to promote yourself and your own opinions rather than being here to produce a neutral encyclopedia, the ban becomes a very real possibility. If you're here for the good of the project rather than for self-promotion and soapboxing, you need to start working much harder to demonstrate this. Friday (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions; Like I said: While I don't edit as much nowadays as in the past (I don't get paid to edit), I usually don't have much argument over my edits, or, if I do, we usually get over it. Sometimes my suggestions gain concensus -sometimes not, but see my edit history on those links near the last paragraph on my RfBan page -the ones that 10 of trades sought and that Orange Monster allege existed; I posted a few links. That should answer your questions; As long as people don't poke at me, I won't answer back, and even if they do, I might not answer back.--GordonWatts 19:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Community noticeboard
Hi, Gordon, it seems to me that some people are trying to help you at the community noticeboard, and you're making it difficult for them by giving long answers to show how (in your view) they're wrong. Could I ask you to stop responding. You seem not to realise that every time that you post a long answer, you come across as argumentative. That seems to have been a big problem with your RfA, to which Calton directed me. It seems a very bad idea to respond to each and every piece of criticism, and you seemed deaf to the people who were pointing out that you were making matters worse. I respect what you tried to do for Terri Schiavo (though I'm afraid you lose some of that respect by telling people about it at almost every opportunity, and by constantly claiming that you did better than Governor Bush), but those links are not going to go into the article, so there's no point in fighting that battle any more. If you keep arguing, you'll increase the likelihood of being banned. I don't want to see that happen. You show no sign of ill will, and I think you've been treated very rudely by some people. But it is a problem that you either can't or won't refrain from doing things once you see evidence that they annoy people, whether it's calling Calton Cal, writing your posts in different colours (which takes up more space in the edit box, and which seems as if you want to draw attention to yourself more than other people do), or responding to every single argument. Please. The best possible sign you could give of being willing to change this would be to archive this message without first posting a long rebuttal of my points. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong; it matters if you show that you're not prepared ever to let someone else have the last word. If I offend you with this message, I'm sorry. I do mean it kindly, and I hope you won't be banned. ElinorD (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton
I don't what it is about you two, but just stop it. I've already asked Calton not to call you names or engage in provocation. However, calling him 'long-winded and non-stop' and holding up his RfC as some sort of evidence that he is more troublesome than you is utterly ridiculous. If you're not prepared to comment on his (or anyone else's) remarks civilly, then bite your tongue.

Any one of several editors – myself included – could file an RfC on your conduct in the blink of an eye. We were hoping to deal with your behaviour less formally and more rapidly through other means.

Unless you stop trying to 'win' arguments and start listening to what other people are telling you, you're going to find yourself banned in short order. You're doing to yourself now exactly what you did on your RfA. Getting the last word doesn't mean you've won; providing the longest argument doesn't mean you're the smartest; repeating your arguements with more bold type doesn mean that people will be more likely to agree with you the second or third time around.

The chief problem with your behaviour was not the minor issue of including links to your own webpages (though you do have a conflict of interest there with respect to evaluating the quality and reliability of them as a source.) The problem is your subsequent style of argument. The people who you encounter on Wikipedia are generally both intelligent and – by the time you hit any noticeboards – well-versed in Wikipedia policy. You don't need to quote chapter and verse at length or repeat it ad nauseam. You need to state your case once, clearly, and step back and listen to the feedback you're getting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No original research
You may want to have a look at No original research. Since this is an encyclopedia, editors must use sources, not be the source. Phone calls you've had are irrelevant here. Keep in mind that talk page discussion should conform to our core content policies- original research isn't appropriate on talk pages. Friday (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not advocating using my phone call to another editor AS a source. (As a news reporter, if I wanted to use MYSELF as a source, I need not go to another editor -I myself, as a first-hand witness to many Schiavo event AM a source myself -no different than any other of the hundreds of writers who canvassed/visited that Terri Schiavo's hospice that month.) Rather, all I was trying to demonstrate, Friday, was that the other editor was kind enough to speak to me on the phone -that's all -no request on my part to use our phone call as any source of source here. I know it's been getting thick lately, but, please don't read into my writings something I didn't actually say. No offense meant.--GordonWatts 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)