| Revision as of 12:59, 29 June 2005 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →[]← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:03, 23 November 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,321 edits →ArbCom elections are now open!: new section | ||
| (45 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Because of their length or pertinency, some or all of the previous discussions on this page may have been archived. | |||
| <!-- | |||
| If further archiving is needed, see ]. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Previous discussions:''' | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691991546 --> | |||
| * ]: | |||
| *]: | |||
| --> | |||
| <!-- | |||
| *]: | |||
| --> | |||
| ---- | |||
| == 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) | |||
| '''''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: | |||
| :"''...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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| == 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) | |||
| :Once again...Kudos. And thanks.--] 21:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ''Spelling error'' LMAO! You were right. Fruedian slip. ;-) Thanks for the head's up.--] 03:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Palm Sunday rewrite=== | |||
| I understand your concern that the admin's reaction/lack of reaction during the week of the 3/20/05 to various events may not fit well as written. I'm not yet satisfied with it, and I'd like to see if we can tweak it. A statement of fact about the controversy surronding reactions (with link) to both cases fits better in the ] article than it does in the ]. In fact, in the RLHS massacre article, the paragraph was removed because the relavence was questioned. I added a link in the References table there rather than reinsert the paragraph. I think the Terri Schiavo article needs to mention '''something''' in order to suggest motivations for the extraordinary efforts surrounding the compromise and encouraging the reader to dig deeper. Should this mention the ]? Would the RLHS reference make more sense in the context of the memo? Whatever, we should keep things to one or two sentences that encourage research.--] 12:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You replaced the entire ] page with just a single subsection thereof. Is that what you intended to do? ] 22:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Geez, you're quick. No it wasn't. I don't know how it happened, and I noticed it and fixed it immediately. ] 22:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I watch the recent changes feed for edits that remove over 2000 bytes and investigate them for reasonability. This is especially the case for Talk: pages, which generally should never shrink, except when being archived. ] 22:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I think you ran into the same problem on this page, too. ] 01:46, May 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yep, I fixed it. --] | ] 03:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Name format == | |||
| Minor quibble ... yes, the Chuck Yeager and Joe foss pages use the "first, middle, nickname, surname" format, but then again the Bill Gates page uses the "commonly known as" form, and we already got rid of that one. I don't like eaither, but also, 'Terri' isn't really a nickname, it's an abbreviation of 'Theresa'. To me, Theresa Marie 'Terri' Schiavo is ugly ... how about we go with the version we discussed on the talk page? ("Terri Schiavo, full name Theresa Marie Schiavo")? ] 15:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case == | |||
| Mistakes happen, and I'm no stranger to them. For example, just yesterday I mistakenly redirected an article to the wrong page and moved an article instead of redirecting. I was able to fix the former, but now I need the help of an admin to fix the latter. So, you're not alone. I don't think anyone thinks of you as a vandal. --] | ] 22:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Look up "supercilious" in the dictionary... == | |||
| ...and I believe you'll find your picture next to the definition. My problem is that I don't suffer fools -- especially arrogant ones -- gladly: what's yours? | |||
| You used the form "12 May, 2005" -- with the superflous comma consistently throughout. If you actually had the authority you've assigned yourself -- ham radio, government work, etc -- you'd know that the format you used was, well, wrong. I caught 100% of that point, thank you very much, and if your pride or lack of reading comprehension makes you miss that, I can't really help you any further. --] | ] 13:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == "Pat, I'm disappointed in you" == | |||
| This sort of ] is unnecessary as your approval is irrelevant. Michael's credibility in relating Terri's wishes to be dehydrated to death is at the '''heart''' of the Terri Schiavo case. Of course, Michael was believed and the Schindlers were not but doubts about this legal finding are not irrational and remain the "emotional" opinion held by millions. ] 16:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, you unfortunately continue to ignore the fact that at trial Michael's testimony was among the least considered; not as to credibility but as to the potential conflict of interest (shared by the Schindlers) raised by GAL Pearse. Most importantly, Michael's testimony was not remotely the only testimony—from the order, "''The court took testimony from eighteen witnesses.''" I'm not implying that they all testified the same way. It merely proves that Greer didn't make his decision solely on Michael's say so. Moreover, that people (even millions of them) have doubts is even more irrelevant than my approval, and is most certainly irrational because they (nor I) were not at trial (and in most cases they haven't even read the orders) and did not have the advantage that Greer did, as the order states, "''he court has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor, hear inflections, note pregnant pauses, and in all manners assess credibility above and beyond the spoken or typed word.''" ] 18:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == All three neurologists? == | |||
| The statement, ''all three neurologists'', confuses the former text, ''Five doctors were selected to provide their expert testimony to the trial: two by Schiavo's parents, two by Mr. Schiavo, and one by the court.'' --] | ] 06:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == For a good laugh...Comments from A ghost== | |||
| Come see the mess FuelWagon and I got ourselves into on the ] page. And I thought the ] article needed work...it was a warm-up.--] 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| --] 19:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Re:Uncle Ed's rewrite of the intro:''' Yeah, I wasn't completely happy with his version either. For what it's worth, the revert was done with regret. But I let the genie out of the bottle, so I've got to take responsability for some of the consequences. Unfortunately, Ed's first instinct seems to be that we can all gather around the fire, eat brownies and sing ''Kumbaya''. I tried; it doesn't work. He may have to learn the error of this approach through experience.--] 15:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, if I remember, your revert was when I was on a mission regarding mentioning the ]. I didn't complain because I gave up and swallowed my pride. I was right, but it was becoming clear that I hold a minority opinion on that one and that it wasn't going to be respected. So, I chose to be a part of the community rather than not. Such are the sacrifices we make to be good neighbors. 8-) --] 16:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Re: Reducing article size on ]:''' You may want to have a look at the article splits done on ] & ] to have a better idea of what I propose. ] was originally opposed, but has since become a convert. I didn't provide links of the examples on the ] page because I'd rather avoid sharing trolls.--] 17:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, I had done similar tightening on the ], but it was ignored and is quite out of date. Hope it helps.--] 18:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::SWMBO - LOL. I have one too. Terri (my wife) doesn't really understand why we care, be respects that we do. Please convey my thanks for you time to your Lady. Your efforts on this page have kept several things from spiraling out of control. And what keeps me motivated is the thought of my children (or yours) using this as a resource. They're who I write for.--] 18:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Re:sectional NPOV flag - Nah, we're kool. I knew it wasn't a shot at me. In fact, it was a 'check' manuver on Mr. Dave. It was meant to force him to admit that that one little stupid line was the only thing he had an issue with (for now). That left him with the options of 1)leaving it, and admiting he was being petty; 2) yank it and reinsert the general NPOV, allowing me to escalate; 3) yank it altogether. Either way, I win. I've played various games at tournament levels for years. I'm in an endgame with Mr. Dave. And I play to win.--] 02:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Re:''"Holidays must have been hell for you."''LOL. No, they were great. It was like watching Jon Stewart's segment of Comedy Central for hours. LMAO(it's on now). And Bill Moyers just said, "If Mark Twain was alive, he'd be working at Comedy Central." Although the Ford/Carter campaign was tense. Grandma (the Senator) and Grandpa were politicians and lawyers by trade; singers and comedic actors (Gilbert & Sullivan) by choice.--] 04:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on ]. I ask for your support.--] 20:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re:spelling corrections. NP, bro. Thx. My spell checker (me) is on the frizizzle.--] 22:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mediator's Announcement== | |||
| You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the ] article. Initial discussion is beginning at ]. ] ] 20:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Do you have any online references for the information you intend to insert? I'm happy for you to add it as it's hard to review without something to work from. -- ] | ] 02:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Excellent. I look forward to seeing it all fall into place :) -- ] | ] 02:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually I prefer the information in the one article. They're both legal terms and somewhat related. -- ] | ] 03:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::If that's what you call a draft, I think it's pretty bloody good. I'm all the more informed, thanks. -- ] | ] 15:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == In re ] == | |||
| Hi there, not sure about Wikittiquet on replying user page discussions, but I responded to your question on my ]. ~ ] 15:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Sorry, I totally screwed up. Thought I was inserting when I was removing (how'd that happen? weird!) --]|] 28 June 2005 16:50 (UTC) | |||
| : Beware of the proprietorial attitude. Editors make mistakes and of course we own up to them, but you're getting close to the point where you're asserting that your edits are intrinsically better than other edits because you're "respected". That isn't how Misplaced Pages works. --]|] 29 June 2005 10:52 (UTC) | |||
| Well now you're comparing other editors to "some wack-job who just fell off the turnip truck" and you're falsely accusing me of using my administrator status. I don't know where all this hostility is coming from, but I think it's appropriate to counsel against continuing to treat other editors in this way. Please show some respect. --]|] 29 June 2005 12:59 (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)