| Revision as of 04:27, 25 May 2005 editDuckecho (talk | contribs)659 edits →The infamous non-win supreme court case← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:03, 23 November 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,142,121 edits →ArbCom elections are now open!: new section | ||
| (115 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == ] == | |||
| I answered your post on my page at: | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom#Your_beefs_and_your_errors | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691991546 --> | |||
| Gordon Watts in Lakeland, Florida | |||
| --] 19:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Linking to His Own Site(s) == | |||
| I picked up on a little bit of that from the Talk page. | |||
| Some people here are unbelievable. | |||
| Take a look at the ] Talk: page for some more wingnuttery on parade. | |||
| --] 04:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Automatic GW reverts== | |||
| he's become quite the verbose and pesky varmint... ] 02:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| While there may be sympathizers to your POV, you are not in the majority; sit tight and chill. | |||
| '''Duck,''' I answer your concerns at this diff, which would link to: if the page is not modified by the time you click on it. --] 10:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''''Wagon,''''' if you want to impress us with your accomplishments or research in the Schiavo case, post them on the talk page, but unjustified criticism of another's accomplishments makes not your own. --] 10:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages isn't about impressing people, Gordon. FuelWagon isn't adding links to his site.--] 23:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == The infamous non-win supreme court case == | |||
| One can't help but notice the number of references to GW and his 4-3 trouncing in the Florida Supreme Court. He throws it up at us in nearly every other paragraph: | |||
| :Hmm.. Maybe he’s trying to say something.--] 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, ''he's'' saying, "look at me, look at me." Sadly, when anyone does look at you they see a pathetic ''poseur'' pretending to be a player. Don't you have to clean your room or something? ] 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :"''...like what I did in court''," | |||
| :"''I was the most successful litigant on the "losing" side...''," | |||
| :"''ompare how well I did in court with the lame governor...''," | |||
| :"''I did better than Jeb...''," | |||
| :"''...and let me remind you that I got further than both Conigliaro and Bush combined, in my near win in court...''," | |||
| :"''and let's not forget that I played a central role in the Schiavo case, and, in some instances did better than the Florida Governor in court...''," | |||
| :"''... if my success in court was so great...''," | |||
| :"''...how does everybody think I got to where I am today with my near win in court?''," | |||
| :"''et's not forget that I came closer than the Florida Governor to having saved Terri in court...''," | |||
| :"''ace it: I came very close to winning in court in the most celebrated case of the century...''," | |||
| :"''... the fellow who almost won in court...''," | |||
| :"''...who exactly did better than me in court in trying to save Terri...''," | |||
| :"''...my achievement in court was ''better'' than that of the big players...''," | |||
| :"''...he who was not equaled in court in efforts to save Terri...''," | |||
| Those are just the ones I could find in a hurry. Almost every editor who has a talk page will have one or more of the same sort of self aggrandizing hooey. | |||
| I finally (I wish I had done it sooner) took a look at this ''celebrated'' and ''unprecedented'' court case and here is what I found (you can see for yourself by going to the page and search under SC03-2420): | |||
| Gordo filed a motion of habeus corpus and at the same time filed an affidavit of indigency (translation: too cheap to pay the fee). Unfortunately, Gordo didn't bother to find out the proper way to file and the court struck his motion, although they gave him ten days to refile properly. The next day Gordo filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority and an Appendix. The first was stricken because it didn't comply with court rules (a theme that will be repeated). | |||
| Almost a month later (and fifteen days late) Gordo filed his amended motion for habeus corpus, an amended appendix, a cover letter, and a motion for time extension. | |||
| On 23 Feb, 2005, the court denied the motion for habeus corpus due to failure to comply with the court's directed timetable and struck all related motions as moot. | |||
| Then Gordo filed a motion for reinstatement (one day late—what a surprise), which was also a concurrent motion for clarification, both of which were denied. | |||
| :That time, it was filed on time, not late, but the court did not abide by court rules, which added several days on for postal submissions. | |||
| ::Sorry. The docket says "filed 1 day late." Was that your first time using the mail? ] 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The other time, when I was 15 days late, I really was late, but remember -this was an original jurisdiction case, and even ''if'' I were late (which I think was the only time in my life I was late in a court filing), it is of no import: "Original jurisdiction" filing is allowed any time that a deprivation in liberty is alleged, which I was certainly doing, because Terri was still detained in contravention to the laws on hospice limitations to terminally ill. So, the court probably said to itself: "Hmm... the boy has a point: If we dismiss him, he can simply re-file, and it would be "timely," because Theresa is indeed illegally detained; so, we'd better continue his case." In any case, the court actually did continue my case from late 2003 until mid 2005, which is discussed briefly below.</font> --] 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I really would like to know what color the sun is on the planet where you live. Time that passes while one's case is pending does not constitute it being ''continue''d. In any event, the multiple denials and strikes occured over a much shorter time period than you allege. We're not even to ''mid 2005'' yet, for crying out loud. You should go back to the official docket and review the time table. All your speculation as to what the court may have thought or said to itself is worthless. They said all they had to say when the declined to accept your improperly filed motion, declined to accept your untimely filed motion, and denied a rehearing on their decision. They '''never''' actually addressed your motion. They may not even have read it. However, in your fantasy world, you can have ice cream for every meal and all the kids will like you. Have a ball. Those who can read will look at the docket and see what really happened. ] 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Gordo filed a motion for a stay pending review, a motion to expedite, and a motion to file electronically (these motions). The court granted the motion to file electronically but denied the other two motions because they had been rendered moot by the denial of the motion for reinstatement. | |||
| Gordo then filed a motion for clarification which was stricken as unauthorized. | |||
| Now if you had trouble following that, let me help. The court never considered the facts of the motion. They dismissed it as untimely. The only motion they actually considered (other than the lowly motion to file electronically) was the motion to reinstate the motion for habeus corpus. That motion (to reinstate) was the one the court turned down 4-3. | |||
| So comparing this case to Bush's appeal to overturn a decision of the Court of Appeals, is laughable. It's pure fantasy to draw any comparison at all. Hearings were held and facts were argued in the Bush case. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the appeals court. It was Bush's appeal for reinstatement that was overturned 7-0. | |||
| For Gordo to trumpet that he got farther or closer than Bush is pure nonsense. For icing on the cake, Gordo uttered this classic, "''...but probably they would not have even considered my case...''" Hello! They '''didn't''' consider your case. It got thrown out as untimely and improperly filed. | |||
| I just thought you'd like to know that it is a matter public record that Gordo is a legend in his own mind. ] 20:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :OMG! that is too damn funny. ] 20:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let's not forget that both the governor and I lost our initial rounds in court, and when the dust settled, we both stood on equal ground (or maybe he was a tad higher, being "the governor," who got a hearing), but we both lost unanimously (I lost 1-0, with the clerk being the only "vote," and he lost 7-0 with the court voting), and we both went into overtime, seeking something to break the tie, in the friendly rivalry that existed among those on our side. Now, in a tie-breaker, no one cares what happened before -we both lost unanimously -a tie. So, BOTH of us asked for a rehearing, and who do you think did better? I was voted down 4-3, and the court called my rehearing motion a reinstatement motion, but it is the same thing. Jeb was voted down 7-0, and no one came closer to winning for Terri than did I --but it was theoretically possible. --] 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::For example, someone could have been '''granted''' a rehearing (which I don't think happened) -and THEN lost. --] 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::For example, someone could have lost 5-4 in the US Supreme Court (which would be a loss of only 55.56% vs. 44.44% of the vote, better than my 57.143% vs. 42.857%) --the US supreme court has '''nine''' members, not '''seven''', changing the ratios, and a 44% loss would’ve been better than a 43% loss that I encountered. --] 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::For example, some one on the "save Terri" side could’ve actually won. No one did. I came the closest. The route traveled is of no import; the fact that I achieved a better result than the Governor is a measure of my success. By the way, if we were to accept your hypothesis that I was merely a legend in my own mind, Duck, then '''''why did the court no dismiss me 7-0'''''? Awaiting an answer, but I won't get one. I don't check my page much, so go see my full contact data, which, by the way in on both my WIKI page AND at the bottom of ALL the official court briefs I filed. --] 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are too clueless for words. Your motion in the Florida Supreme Court was never even accepted for consideration. You missed two filing deadlines (one in defiance of the court's order) which led the court to decline to even accept your motion. Bush's was heard and argued (and to add insult to injury, your motion to file an ''amicus'' brief in his case was denied, too—another loss). Do you not see the difference? Sure, both of you filed for a rehearing: Bush, to re-argue the case that the court heard, you to get the court to hear your motion in the first place. Bush lost (the vote doesn't matter—he lost), and the court didn't re-hear his case. You lost (again, the vote doesn't matter—you lost), and the court didn't accept your motion at all. Never even heard it. Didn't rule on it. There is utterly no equivalency in your cases. And frankly, the fact that the court '''heard''' arguments in Bush's case and didn't even accept yours means he came '''way''' closer to denying Terri's wishes than you. ] 21:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Gordon, just know that everyone but you sees a simple windmill and someone wearing tinfoil clothing riding a donkey. Your insistence on casting yourself as a knight in shining armor fighting the evil dragon doesn't change the truth. usually, by the time kids reach 8 or 10 years old, they learn that they cannot simply wish for something to be true to make it true. ] 23:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, If my case were such a "loser," then why wasn't my rehearing motion promptly denied? (If my case were so stupid, it would've been immediately denied, and NOT lingered in court from late 2003 until mid 2005!) --] 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Would it have anything to do with your untimely filings and dilatory waste of the court's time? In any event, as I said above; check your calendar. You were directed to properly file your motion by 18 March 2004. You didn't file until April. I'd say that's when the clock started. Your motion was dismissed in late June. That's pretty prompt in court time. ] 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We're not even at mid 2005 yet and your case was sent to the record center in early May, well before mid 2005. Your request for reinstatement was denied in February—'''early''' 2005. The only actual filing of yours that the court admitted was stricken in March, also '''early''' 2005. Looks to me like your entire case (once properly, if untimely, filed) took up no more than ten months of the court's time. ] 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::One other tidbit: If my case were such a loser, that is, not notable, as you might call it, then why was I not defeated by a 7-0 margin? (If it were so stupid, it would've been defeated 7-0, not 4-3). Just thought I might ask a few probing questions, to which you probably have no answers, eh? --] 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I said it before and I'll say it again, but you won't get it. Vote spread doesn't have any relavence to the merits of a case. 4-3, 7-0—doesn't matter. It's a loss. And here's something else to try and get your arms around. '''I''' never said your case was a loser. The '''court''' never said your case was a loser, either. The court never even accepted your case (the motion for ''habeus corpus'') for review (they did look at your motion for reinstatement—that was your only ''case''). What I '''did''' say was that '''you''' were a loser at court. You lost. You didn't win. You are bereft of victory. ] 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Gordon, you are nearing 40 years of age. You need to start coming to terms with some realities. One of them is that you are not a lawyer. Filing motions in court does not make you a lawyer. Even just understanding the legal system (which it is clear you do not) does not make you a lawyer. Pretending that you have enjoyed success by not losing as bad as you could have is something that most people start growing out of around puberty. What's holding you up? ] 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Reply to Scatology, et al == | |||
| Hi, Duckecho. Thanks for your message. As you'll see, I've added another message to the Terri Schiavo talk page, concerning the treatment of NCdave. You think I'm a little quick to rise to his defence, but in fact, I was around more at an earlier stage, and I have almost constantly found that the atmosphere was hostile towards anyone who seemed to lean towards the Schindler side. Tropix, for example, arrived on 9 April, and made some calm, rational contributions (in my opinion) . I would guess that Tropix is pro-life, although he never said so. He seemed to understand the meaning of NPOV. He never inserted personal commentary about Michael being abusive, or Greer being wrong. He tried to give more mention to testimony from doctors who disputed the PVS diagnosis, for example. He was not rude; he did not engage in edit wars. (I'm assuming that Tropix is a "he", but I don't actually know.) He was abused, and ridiculed. I only discovered last night, looking through archives, etc. that FuelWagon made five edits to Tropix's user page, accusing him of being a sockpuppet (first vandalism), or a suspected sockpuppet (the other four vandalisms). The evidence and seemed to be simply that his edits showed considerable Wikipedian skill for an alleged newcomer. Placing a sockpuppet image on his user page seems spiteful and childish, and in violation of the ] policy. I do not think it would have happened if his edits had been more on the side of Michael Schiavo. Tropix has now disappeared, and I don't blame him. I felt like disappearing myself. I have also received a certain amount of abuse, though it hasn't been too bad. | |||
| With regard to NCdave, his method of editing is very different from Tropix's and mine. It seems pointless to keep on inserting the POV tag, knowing that it will be reverted within minutes. But I can sympathize because I do believe that the neutrality is disputed. I can name at least five registered editors who would agree - but some of them have left, possibly in frustration or disgust. I can sympathize because I believe he has been treated rudely and unfairly. Whether you agree with his POV or not, it seems certain that he has ''tried'' to discuss the issues on the talk page, and has been scorned, abused, and ridiculed. Many of the points he makes are ignored. (I admit that his messages can be very long!) | |||
| I disagree that he has vandalized. The ] article clearly states that NPOV violations are not vandalism. He has certainly engaged in edit wars, but I'm sure that could happen to any of the other editors who currently enjoy a respected status among Terri Schiavo Misplaced Pages editors if 98% of fellow editors were pro-life Christians who started a "revert on sight" policy. | |||
| Another accusation against NCdave which I believe to be unfair is the accusation that he tried to change the official Wikiquette policy to match his own behaviour. His edits (made between 20 March and 6 April) can be seen here . I see no evidence that he was trying to alter the policy. He claims that there was an ambiguity, as "right and wrong" can refer to morality or to truth. The article said that the talk pages were not a place to discuss what was right or wrong. He clarified what he saw as an ambiguity, adding that issues of what was true or false could be discussed. I have a degree in linguistics, and I fully agree that there was an ambiguity. My experience of Misplaced Pages tells me that his attempted edits are in accordance with what is expected at a talk page. (Not whether or not Terri should have had the tube removed, but whether or not she received any therapy after 1992, or whether or not Dr Hammesfahr was validly nominated for a Nobel Prize. In other words, facts, not moral judgments.) The way he was reverted - one edit summary said, "Any further edits by NCDave should also be reverted" - seems also to be contrary to the ] policy. | |||
| So, all I'd say is that the atmosphere at the Terri Schiavo Talk Page is not always very friendly towards pro-life newcomers, even those who don't start edit wars. I'm happy to say that there are exceptions though. Thanks again for your message. ] 01:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Ongoing efforts on the ] page == | |||
| Thank you for putting in the energy that I haven't been able to lately. My whole family's been ill. Your attempt to go line-by-line is the best way to go. I just hope the extremists don't unwind it too much.--] 13:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:03, 23 November 2015
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 Misplaced Pages 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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)