| Revision as of 21:58, 10 May 2005 editRickK (talk | contribs)36,836 edits →Wikiquette← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:36, 12 May 2005 edit undoNCdave (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,315 edits →Schiavo pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| "Things that make you go 'hmm...'." Maybe, just maybe I was onto something... Anyhow, I answer y'all on the talk page, FUEL WAGON. ] 08:50pm, 6 Apr 2005 (EST) | "Things that make you go 'hmm...'." Maybe, just maybe I was onto something... Anyhow, I answer y'all on the talk page, FUEL WAGON. ] 08:50pm, 6 Apr 2005 (EST) | ||
| FuelWagon, in one of your edit summaries on the Terri Schiavo page, FuelWagon, you wrote "NCdave snuck this in earlier when he did a full page edit," and deleted a paragraph from the article. But I didn't write that paragraph. (You shouldn't have deleted it either -- it was good and probably accurate information.) Before you write that I did or said something, please make sure that I really did so. ] 17:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==RFC== | ==RFC== | ||
Revision as of 17:36, 12 May 2005
vandalism
click here to report vandalism in progress ] Click once, and then you'll have to wait a few seconds. It takes a while.
click here for refernce desk ]
I will now commence chuckling and knee-slapping
Just wanted to let you know that I am officially appropriating the phrase "Whack-a-Mole logic game" for my own use, that is excellent. Been trying to think of a succint way to describe NCdave's style of debate for a while now.
Fox1 08:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Schiavo page
NCDave and GordonWattsDotCom are very active again. I'm gonna give a shot at hitting a middle ground during lunch. You may want to unwind. NCDave, at least is toned down today. Haven't had time to review GordanWatts, but based on history....
FUEL WAGON, your colleagues generally defended you, and I answered all critics and criticisms, and concluded that maybe you all were right on some of your suggestions or inuendo's, but you don't get a free pass. By the way, my first name has two o's in it (compare: "GordanWatts" with "GordonWattsDotCom") ~ I won't repeat here what I posted at:
about you, but suffice it to say that I have made proper editorial adjustments, without compromising to "cut and slash" editors. Oh, you know why I was "so active?"
I was the most successful litigant on the "losing" side, the side that lost in court. Compare how well I did in court with the lame governor, and ignore, for a moment (if you could) that he got lots of press, and I didn't.
Now, just why do you think that I scored better than the Gov.: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf who lost 7-0 on rehearing motion, when I lost here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf in the SAME case 4-3, trying to save Terri? (He got a 4-3 decision to amend his petition, but that was minor; when we both tried to get rehearing, I was more successful, and NO ONE else got a higher percentage of panel votes in attempts to dave Terri: My 4-3 loss represented about 42 or 43% of my panel. You do the math,...)
"Things that make you go 'hmm...'." Maybe, just maybe I was onto something... Anyhow, I answer y'all on the talk page, FUEL WAGON. Gordon Watts in Fla. 08:50pm, 6 Apr 2005 (EST)
FuelWagon, in one of your edit summaries on the Terri Schiavo page, FuelWagon, you wrote "NCdave snuck this in earlier when he did a full page edit," and deleted a paragraph from the article. But I didn't write that paragraph. (You shouldn't have deleted it either -- it was good and probably accurate information.) Before you write that I did or said something, please make sure that I really did so. NCdave 17:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
RFC
I have filed a request for comment on NCdave. You can visit the page by going here. I have left this message on your talk page since you have been involved in the dispute resolution process regarding his edits in the past. Mike H 11:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Just happened to see your question about the use and effects of an RFC on Prof. Ninja's page. Essentially the RFC generates exactly what it states: comments. The hope is that this will bring in new, uninvolved editors who can mediate and normalize a conflict, and it can also become a collection of evidence for an arbitration case. It doesn't seem to be fully integrated into the model for Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution yet, though, and no, it doesn't arrive at any kind of binding resolutions. Bear in mind that the Arbcom tends to reject cases where they feel efforts towards pre-arbitration resolution were lacking; the more steps taken before the "last resort" of the arbcom, the more likely the arbcom is to take quick, decisive action.
Fox1 06:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Legal stuff on the Schiavo page
Hi--here's hoping you read this before I post on the TS talk page. I want to commend you for your work in trying to keep it neutral and really trying to understand--and getting--the legal stuff. Any comments I may have about the writing are really no reflection upon you or your work, but rather reflect upon problems with having so many people editing, and editing from a partisan perspective and inserting a great deal of irrelevant detail about tangential stuff. I started reading the article in order to reply to your what do you think about the feeding tube/life support section query, hit the medical malpractice section and went "eh?" (and I'm not Canadian), kept on reading and had to stop (or start banging my head against the desk in sheer frustration). This started confusing me, and I understand the legal issues and process. So, my short answer to your query is: ya' did fine. My "problem"--which I will eventually get to on the talk page--has to deal with how the legal cases are being handled in general. Again, no reflection on you! (And the "whack-a-mole logic game" is brilliant.)Mia-Cle 01:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Formal vs Journalistic Style
Props to the FuelWagon. Thanks. It's good to agree with you on something. :-) --ghost 19:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I attempted to implement this particular solution in the early life section right around the time Terri died, but my changes were reverted. While we agree that it's one solution, I'm not certain it's the best solution. Time will tell. --Viriditas | Talk 00:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Janice Rogers Brown
Thanks for your contributions to the article. I think it's important to get a good start on everyone on Bush's "potential nominee" list, as these pages will all get very hectic when Rehnquist actually shuffles off his mortal coil. -- BDAbramson 22:06, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
You interested in another article?
I'm gearing up for major work on the Intelligent Design article. I went to it to see if it mentioned the Kansas Board of Ed. controversy (I'm not crazy about ID in public schools). I was confronted with a 17pg article that read to me as being overwhelmingly POV. My concern is that the ID critics are providing valid proofs & references, but these are being presented as disproofs rather than facts about opinions. There's alot of background work on this one.
I admit to my own POV on Intelligent Design (I'm neo-Pagan), so having another Wikipedian that I know telling me when I'm being stupid would be very helpful. I respect your work on all things Terri Schiavo, and hope I can enlist your help.--ghost 21:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikiquette
Can't even be bothered to hold a civil discussion? RickK 20:51, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I used the wrong name, it was entirely accidental. And my comments were not meant as a threat, but as a friendly warning. We are on the same side in the Terri Schiavo article. RickK 21:58, May 10, 2005 (UTC)