User talk:ThisLaughingGuyRightHere

Welcome!

 * }

the trial tapes
If you want I will make the offer to you also to share the word document i mentioned with the tapes and the basic notes I made at the time I listened to them. If they ultimately get shot down by consensus I figure we can use the dates and information to find another referenc (perhaps newspaper reference from Orlando paper for that date, or somewhere else. If you want it let me know.  Still not finished listening - may take a few days and the notes are written quickly and did not always capitalize but the info is correct.  Let me know. Mugginsx (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

document of hearing that includes diary proffer
If you have the hearing date, you could go to this page I found. If you are interested go to:   http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/052511-erica-gonzalez  on top it will start of testimony of erica gonzales but at bottom of page you will see several items that say "Photo Gallery of hearing of (date)", click that and you will see small pictures of those who appeared at the hearing - then click on the person and the information underneath the picture will tell the date of the hearing and what the hearing is about. Then maybe you could find it on the internet. If you want me to do it I will if I know the date of the hearing. Anyway, good luck, hope you find it. I am getting tired of listening to the entire trial tapes - maybe what we are looking for was all taken care of pre-tial and I am on a wild goose chase. Anyway, at least I will have what I listened to at my fingertips should any questions come up and I am most willing to share the word doc and website addresses with you or anyone (except you-know-who) (smile) if you enable e-mail. Mugginsx (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you want them right now or in another day I will have much more. It is up to you.  Remember, I am typing as fast as I can as far as the notes go, so there is little or no capitalization and some abbreviation but since we are so familar with the trial I am sure you can figure it out.  Also the website addresses are there for all I have looked at so far, including the one I already gave you so if you are not interested in my notes or confused by them or didn't happen to watch that day, you can watch it all for yourself.  That Orlando site also has trial footage - didn't see it until I had tolook for a specific witness and it came up on the search engine.  Let me know and I will send it out either today or tomorrow.  Hey who is that editor that is ripping us a new one?  I went to the User page and didn't see administrator on the page - just roll-back rights.  Talk about civility, he or she could use some him or herself. Mugginsx (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * SENT TODAYS WORK AND SOME PAST STUFF Mugginsx (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Your sources are great. Lots of actual documents.  I love it.  And reading the messages she sent to her friends while caylee was missing - very chilling how much one can compartmentalize events.   Thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You rock on the death of caylee anthony article
Left me all alone today to deal with ...... That was not nice of you. Your research in invaluable. I really mean that. Spent today reading alot of WIKI regulations to hopefully get this article to GA status. It think it needs to be semi-protected because just today there was 4 obvious vandalisms. Don't know how to do that, or if we can ask for it, do you? Oh, and I definitely think there are depositions on all or most of the boyfriends. They would have almost certainly been suspected of complicity and if not depositions, certainly police taped interviews. Have a nice evening Mugginsx (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is fantastic information. Now to get in it the article.  What do you mean you may not go back to the article?  It is you that found and substantiated most of the material that you and others put in!  Hey, I would rather be working on the Battle of Poitiers - that is my favorite kind of article.  I am just on the CA article because I promised an editor I would try to help get it a GA status.  I think it will be near impossible though because everyone wants a piece of it and does not want to give it up for any reason.  Believe me, I will bug out of this article as fast as I can.  I have two books I am trying to read on the medieval battle and some of the weapons used and the other a translation of a fourteen century chronicler and instead I have to watchdog this article.  Well, hope you change you mind, or at least look in and tell me what you think from time to time.  I call this article "Embracing the Horror" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT1UO7v4Tig (smile).  I may give it up myself before too long.  My dog is missing the attention she usually gets. Thanks again for your eagle eye. Mugginsx (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ADDENDUM - I had a look at your link. What is shown is Baez's motion to strike countering Prosecution's Motion to Strike (the diary).  You know, I am starting to get this sinking feeling that for all of your good research and mine into this particular exhibit (the diary) that it went nowhere that we can hear at trial (Meaning the "pit" a//k/a a side bar or "in-camera" conference")-   A pity. If so, with what little we had, (and how hard we looked for it)  I don't know if anyone is going to even let it into the article for very long.  What do you think? I am rather discouraged at this point and may not be thinking clearly. Mugginsx (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I plan to inform you if and when it comes up in case you might not see it. Hopefully I see it myself so, if not, please notify me.  As you say, it was her idea. Notification on editor's page also conforms with policy as long as it is not selective and the message is neutral.  Thanks for speaking up for me. Mugginsx (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Paternity Test full video of trial discussion
HERE IT IS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qIWZIVATz4. Ashton argues to the judge that the "intent" of Baez question about the paternity questions was to throw a negative light on Lee (to shore up Baez opening statements accusations that Casey was sexually abused by father and brother (Lee). Upon resumation of the actual questioning, the FBI forensic agent states that FBI agent Savage asked FBI to look at dna tests of Caylee Anthony to determine if they could ALSO determine paternity. It goes on to say thsat neither George nor Lee are Caylee's father.  That is all I've got right now. Mugginsx (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside: Ashton probably should not have tried to argue a "good faith" issue because in his conversation he says that "no one from the Prosecution asked if the dna could also show paternity. When testimony resumes, if fact "someone DID ask". Since the dna evidence went the Prosecutions way, he would have been better off leaving it for re-direct and just reinforced the dna results. Don't know why he did that. Mugginsx (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

downloading vital videos used as references in the article
Is there a way of downloading some of the trial videos that are used as references in the article? U-tube has a way of deleting videos from time to time. Mugginsx (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow!!!
"...the abhorrent abominations, the diabolical deceptiveness, and the pure perplexing perversity that's so pervasive in the case . . . "  I absolutely loved it! Mugginsx (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, did you try to send me an e-mail with web site material on the trial? I had some trouble with my e-mail, other people that I know did as well, and I lost many that I never got a chance to open. Mugginsx (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

ROY KRONK links
Roy Kronk was a defense witness. Here is what I could find on his testimony, police phone calls, etc.: ROY KRONK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ppeBMx3uuY MELIK AND KRONK ROY KRONK POLICE INTERVIEW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaA-IW8TpJI&feature=related CO-WORKER OF ROY KRONK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaA-IW8TpJI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq5XvmfP_1w&feature=related another police call by roy kronk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f7S21U7TbQ BITS AND PIECES OF ROY KRONK OFFICER ON THE SCENE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NvWDWjfoag&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnLolCW3fxI  UNCUT 911 CALL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCNIG-DKXcY&NR=1 Mugginsx (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

ThisLaughingGuyRightHere - I do not believe that .... has any criminal legal experience. This editor does not even understand the simpliest of terms that all the other editors understand. Do not be intimiated. Put Cheney's recent speech in. No one WP:OWNS the article. 20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, your edit looks good! I found this on the Tiger Bay Club http://www.tigerbayclub.com/ Nite Nite. Mugginsx (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My dog is sixteen years old. She had some worts on her paw.  They are now inert, but the wort shell is still there..  The vet wants $1,000 to take off the worts.  She keeps chewing on them, and got her paw infected.  It is a 24 hour a day effort to keep her paw bandaged so she won't chew on them.  Mugginsx (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Death of Caylee Anthony
I just wanted you to know that I withdrew my objection to the article length. Also, regarding Morales, I liked your edit about him better and there is an Orlando Sentinel site (I believe) that more specifically discribes what he said at trial. I tried to find where it was edited to change it back. I know Carol intervened at one point because she states in her edit summary that she thinks the edit was put in to "make Casey look guilty". (I guess she still doesn't realize that he was a Defense witness put in for Casey's defense. Then Carol changed location after editing it and Flyer put it back where it was but it stayed as Carol edited I believe. Anyway my eyes got tired looking at edit summaries to fix it back to the way you had it.  It may be here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/.  Sorry, just don't remember.  I know it is on U-tube - sent you alot of that and you sent me other Orlando Sentinel sites with alot of information.  Might be in one of yours.   From what I am understanding you can use tapes with another printed source or tapes alone if that is all there is.  Hope this helps Mugginsx (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Muggins again
Discussion on CarolMooredc's proposal. Apparently, we are still in the Discussion phase. But the vote is informal at this point Voting is not evil It mentions an "ad hoc consensus" on the Talk Page. Mugginsx (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal of Mugg.... Oops! not supposed to do that, Oh wait, it's my name so I guess its OK to put in a heading........
Well, all in all its been a good day. Got my computer fixed it was a frayed connection. Got my headphone connection fixed also - I paid ten dollars for wires which as it turned out I didn't need after all. It seems that I have been a little too enthusiastic in my vacuuming of the back of the computer. I unplug the connection and tried to connect the wrong color into my computer. (smile). Should use my brand new lap top but am used to desktop and it takes me a long time to type on it. I wish I had drink right now. Decided not to respond to a Certain Person anymore. No I really mean it this time. Like Jack Nicholson said in "As Good As It Gets" "I don't do crazy here". I think your edits looks great. Just thought I would tell you that. I will look for more deleted info tomorrow. Can you tell me off hand what she deleted. There have been so many edits in past day. Trying out doing the citations the "correct way" so far it hasn't worked.

This Caylee Anthony article is definitely not as much fun as killing medieval french knights with my Welsh longbow at the Battle of Poitiers (1356) Mugginsx (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Another good find on that juror story. Mugginsx (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is regarding your four sets of edits in your reverts of others' material (not mine) between 01:35, August 23, 2011 and 03:55, August 23, 2011. Just a reminder for future reference. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * What is this accusation about a "Possible edit War?" and why did  User:CarolMooredc insert this only on a User's talk page and not on the article's talk page?  Sounds like yet another inappropriate warning again on someone's talk page. CarolMooredc puts this warning banners on different articles talk pages and user's talk pages frequently.  I got one awhile back and just deleted mine.  There has to be an explanation of what was reverted and where and when and it should also be on the article talk page if it is really a valid claim.  If it is BLP violation, you can revert without regard to 3RR no matter how many times. Look at the regs Edit warring [User:Mugginsx|Mugginsx]] (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Further, THERE ARE NO REVERTS. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&action=history for a full 24 hour period. I see the editor correcting HIS OWN information in the article - That is NOT a revert. The only brief interchange was between ThisLaughingGuyRightHere and Slim Virgin. He did not revert her three times.  Further, she is an administrator and if she thought it was a 3RR regulation she would have put the banner there herself WHICH SHE DID NOT. Another day, another bogus claim.Mugginsx (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I am not making a report, but only reminding of the possibility that there are 4 edits in 24 hours which could mean 3 reverts that could be counted towards 3rr, I think the person whose user page this is NOT is engaging in unnecessary hyperbole. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't make a report because the diffs show there was no 3RR. That's like, I didn't make a report that he robbed me and stole my car - because he didn't.  It is meaningless.  A busy editing day on any talk page contains a lot of additions and deletions and re-wordings.  Any three of them in NOT a 3RR.  I think you misunderstand the principle.  It means nothing unless it is a dispute concerning the same information and is a complete revert three times, and that is only under certain conditions.  If it is a BLP matter, 3RR does not count.  It can be reverted a million times.   After a REAL 3RR, an editor usually asks for an administrator to come in and the article is "frozen" to the last revert and he or she helps negotiate the situation on the talk page.  Very seldom does someone get blocked.  In fact, I personnaly have never heard of anyone getting block for a real 3RR though I am sure someone has if they were really belligerent or it is done again and again after dispute is supposed to be settled.  This template is in error and needs to come down.  If you don't want do it ThisLaughingGuyHere, I will be happy to delete it for you.  Mugginsx (talk)


 * I would like to point out that I voluntarily returned the article to the way it was before I even made an edit, and that my edits only changed two words in the article, thus I hardly believe this qualifies as an edit war. I made the repeated changes, as did another editor that I should point out, because I was going back and forth trying to pick the right two words. Again, the article was returned to its original form! I explained my confusion on the talk page of the article and explicitly stated that I returned the article to its original form. To me this is not an issue, but I will be happy to explain it to anyone or anywhere. I have accepted your warning and have moved on. Let's let it go and move on...its done and finished... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 22:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explanation. Too many talk page items, too little time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you put your juor in - every other person put jurors comments in?
Maybe you did but I can't seem to find it. Mugginsx (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Policy on user names
While I at first thought it was funny, and because your edits seemed fairly sensible, I did not bring this up as an issue. But recent talk page comments of yours, and the fact that you are a WP:Single purpose account who only edits on the topic of the person who "This Laughing Guy" Jeff Ashton prosecuted, I realized it really is problematic. After mentioning this elsewhere, someone recommended I have you read Username policy and me to read UNP. So you might consider changing your user name, and also editing on other subjects.

By the way, you seem pretty familiar with policy for someone who just got a user name. Have you edited before under another user name or as an IP? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way Carol, you supposed to announce to an editor or editors when you are discussing them on a noticeboard I know that is a guideline that you were advised about by, TransporterMan and appears on noticeboard setup guidelines.  Also, it is permitted and even Atama does not have a problem with single user accounts.  See his User Page.  Many who use them are Administators, Notable People, and other editors from what I understand. Also, you might look at the guidelines yourself at Single-purpose account "Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest..."  and this "If you are in a discussion with someone who edits as a single-purpose account Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time."   Also, it is obvious even to me, by the questions he asks and the permission he seeks before for editing almost everything he does that he is a newcomer.  There are numerous examples.  While you are checking policy - here is one for you Please do not bite the newcomers Mugginsx (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you must intervene in matters that are not addressed to you, could you at least stick to the subject which is: Username policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with my username. I only edit/read articles with subjects that interest me, and I have/do edit other articles even though my current interest is with the Death of Caylee. To answer your question, I am a new editor. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere  03:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, FYI, I did miss a few initial edits on two other articles. I'll just do an RfC and see what other editors think about the name. Due to hurricane it may be a few days before I do it, which will give you a chance to read the policy and think about the name. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not forget yet again to notify everyone who you are going to discuss. You have already violated that rule twice now.  A third time might mean another blocking for you or possibly a "banning" by an administrator who is watching you. Mugginsx (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Revelent guidlines at Username policy mentions these as criteria: in this section:
 * Appropriate Unsernames: "There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:
 * "Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
 * Promotional usernames are used to promote a group, company, product or website on Wikipedia.
 * Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
 * Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.


 * He does not fit any of the criteria. Since he is not implying that he is Prosecutor Ashton or Jose Baez, but merely repeating a phrase used at trial by Jose Baez, that does meet criteria. Please look at the guidelines you mentioned yourself, and look at Please do not bite the newcomers and look at other editors Usernames before you starting "attacking" a new editor Carol.  Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you decide to bring this in for a complaint about this new user, I'd appreciate a notice of it on my talk page. I feel this is not a misuse of user name, but I do feel that this is biting a newcomer which is frowned upon. Sorry, just my opinion and yes I am still lurking occasionally. ;) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Any "Request for Comment" will be announced here. Just back in business electrically so may take a few days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Carol, I too think you are treading too close to biting a newbie. This user could be using their user name for any kind of meaning not related to the Caylee article.  Do you have proof that the ID is only for this article?  If not maybe you should back off already.  Sorry, but this is my opinion on this.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Its nice to see support and hear other voices on the topic. The editor accuses me of focusing on an article, but the same editor says she has put 500 hours and 3 years work into her article(s). I haven't come anywhere close to that amount of work in the case of the Caylee article. I'll argue my view if need be in order to protect myself from this personal attack and fend off this cyber bullying. I see no violation so it seems like a big hoopla over nothing to me, but still I'll voice my view if need be... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 05:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And if that happens all your friends will be there with you. Mugginsx (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to make a comment there, please do not make the mistake of ignoring the RFC about your user name. Just a friendly suggestion.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC user name posted
At Requests_for_comment/User_names. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

ThisLaughingGuyRightHere: So far there are three in your favor to keep username but Administator Atama has not yet voted. Read you message from me. Mugginsx (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)