Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 39

My last "talk" post for the day -addresses two points raised

My last "talk" post for the day -addresses two points raised (post 5 of 5 I think?)

• The Intro:

I did not sustentatively change the intro, so consider that. Marskell did make some changes, which seemed OK to me, but apparently FuelWagon changed the areas he felt needed changing (and I have no problems with his edits) -so this issue seems to be "resolved," correct?

• My edits: Did I make a "major" change?

No. If you look at what I did, you will see that all I did was do five things:

1) Replace some numbers with numerals (e.g., "something like five years" would become "something like 5 years")

2) Replaced whole words with contractions (e.g., "something like this did not do that" would become "something didn't do that")

3) Removed a LOT of hidden comments (this saved from 1 to 5 kilobytes, I think -don't recall, but it was a LOT, and what I removed we did not need)

4) removed a lot of spaces between links and the periods at the end of sentences (not needed, lol)

and

5) Moved one large section to its own sub-article (yes, Wagon, this looks "major," but there was no change in substance) The only thing I had to do was make sure that each half did not simply start out by referring to people by last names -that is, in each new half, I made sure each new person was introduced by first and last name: The article's "substance" remained the same: It is 100% stable. If you don't believe that, then look at the last "stable" version, and then page through my diffs one-by-one (about 30-to-35 diffs, I think?) -should take 10-20 minutes tops, if you have a fast connection and are a fast reader (you are, Wagon, I can tell)

BONUS: I hit it with spell-check.

Result: No change -except smaller article with sub-article. Dig?--GordonWatts 01:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Taxman, if you feel it is appropriate to block me for making a human mistake due to the Featured Article consensus (which needed my detailed attention and over-rid my memory of any consensus on edit limit agreements), then so block me, but I fall upon your human mercy.--GordonWatts 01:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I've reinserted the legal history that you gutted. That people on the "featured article" page said the article is too long is not a consensus to gut the massive piece that you did. They are saying why they object FA status. That is not consensus among the editors actually working on the article. FuelWagon 15:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well the article doesn't need to be featured, but if it is to be a FA it needs to be properly summarized. If you want to dispute that is the best way to go, please participate in the FAC discussion. There's a lot more people participating there, and thus a larger consensus. Also lets please all try to stick to the 250 word talk page limitation per post to. This is hard to follow. - Taxman ^Talk 15:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is not ready for featured article status. The FAC discussion is a waste of time. There aren't "minor" things that need to be changed. People are insisting that the article be cut in half to get FA status. That aint something you can do overnight and still have a good article. No, gutting the legal history is not a good solution. It isn't even an average solution. it is a lousy solution. The entire history of this article has centered around trying to satisfy NPOV. And there is no simple way to give an "overview" of the legal history. the "terri was murdered" crowd pushes their conspiracy theories into the article, and refuse to allow it to be removed, so the only alternative is to put in the alternate points of view around the conspriacy theory.

Also, I see the intro has also been re-reverted. thanks. Two edits a day, and someone reverts it. great. FuelWagon 19:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

legal history

The legal history has been regutted. The only thing that vaguely resembles consensus is a mandate from FA to make the article shorter. That does not mean that people will suddenly approve the article just because it is short, especially if all the important history is now in a subarticle. This quest for featured article status has become quixotic, to the point of doing anything and everythign to appease outside commenters without regard to the final quality of the article. there was no consensus to remove the legal history so I resinserted it. Taxman has now re-removed it, saying that the legal history can be summarized without all the detail and telling me to go on the FA talk page.

The only problem is, now there is no summary in the article, either, so anything doing with the legal history has been pushed to another article. So, rather than have too long a history or a summary history, we now have no history. This all to satisfy FA.

Until we get a summary, the history should remain in teh article, otherwise the topic is not covered at all. And it is equivalent to submitting to FA an article that is not complete (the summary has not been written). And with only a couple editors and only 2 edits a day, this is going to be nigh impossible to get done anytime soon. Until then, the history should be covered in teh article. Even if it is in minute detail, that is better than in zero detail. FuelWagon 19:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Some eggs have to be broken to make an omlette. If the detailed court history is in an article and we point to it with Main article:TS Court history or something like that, then no material is lost, we're just not overwhelming people on this page. This page clearly should not have that much detail, so instead of complaining about the removed material write a summary. The article is worse with all the detailed court history in it so it should stay out until a summary is written. And no this article won't reach FA quality soon, but steps to get it to that level of quality need to be made. - Taxman ^Talk 19:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"so instead of complaining about the removed material write a summary." did you not read what I just posted? Writing a summary that everyone agrees on will be a hard as writing the article in the first place. You can't just say "write a summary" and expect that will happen overnight. I just wasted two of my edits to have them reverted by you, so I'm not exactly motivated to do much of anything right now. You've grossly oversimplified your proposed path, and you're full reverts and your blanket deletions are not encouragement for anyone to attempt anything different. I'll be wasting my time if I'm just going to get reverted by the likes of you. Thanks for the team effort. FuelWagon 19:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, first plz don't jump on Taxman who's really done his best. Your edits were themselves reversions, right? We have a summary on Government involvement and an equal length summary for the court cases does make sense and achieves balance. I'll try it tomorrow if no one else does (latish on my end). Regarding the intro, I think you're in a minority. We don't need to load it with specifics that are redundant with the rest of the article and I see nothing wrong with it as it stands. Terri isn't ignored. Marskell 19:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The legal history covers a 10 year period of Terri Schiavo's life. the piece before "legal history" is the malpractice suit which covers up to about 1993. The piece after "legal history" is government involvement which began in 2003 with Terri's Law. There is now a ten-year hole in the article. I spent a great deal of time getting the article into chronological order to cover all the events from start to finish, and now 10 years of the most heavily disputed issues have been completely deleted. All, apparently, in an attempt to win Featured Article status. This is supposed to be the Terri Schiavo article, not the initial collapse and final autopsy of Terri Schiavo article with sub articles for everything in between. FuelWagon 16:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"There is now a ten-year hole in the article." False. It was moved to a sub-article. "I spent a great deal of time getting the article into chronological order..." And it still was when I last touched it. "...and now 10 years of the most heavily disputed issues have been completely deleted." No! It is in the sub-article. "All, apparently, in an attempt to win Featured Article status." Yes, but to also improve the article quality. Look, I did not agree with removing the legal battle and making it into a subsection, but consensus both here and here overwhelmingly says the article needs to be split, and I made the cleanest split possible. "This is supposed to be the Terri Schiavo article, not the initial collapse and final autopsy of Terri Schiavo article with sub articles for everything in between." You and I were voted down. I'm man enough to accept it and live with it. You too should follow suit and follow my example.--GordonWatts 02:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

September/October is the busiest time of year for me, and it's almost impossible to keep up with what's happening here, but for the record, I agree with Gordon, Markell, and Taxman on this matter. The article is too long. This has nothing to do with Featured Article status – anytime you do a whole page edit, you get a message saying it's longer than is desirable. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 07:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreement Voided: See talk here

The initial agreement which we accepted here was to limit ourselves to 2 edits/day if an admin would unprotect the page:

• Revision as of 11:32, 13 September 2005
• Taxman (Talk | contribs)
• Moving on - agreed, I'm unprotecting

This agreement was conditional, that is, "if we limit number of edits," then "the admin will unlock." (I personally did not agree to limit my number of edits forever and ever, time unending.) This was in the context of the edit war, in which FuelWagon did not want the "typically legally" language in the article. We eventually all came to an agreement to find a replacement to that paragraph to which Wagon objected, and the evidence is right here, where it is fixed without the "typically legally" language.

Through a misunderstanding of consensus reached the "Project Page" for Featured Articles, I thought that this consensus to reduce size over-rode the other consensus, and I exceeded what we had agreed to do here. While I think that (a) This consensus might have superceded our agreement here; and/or (b) Our agreement was in violation of policy [1] (and thus, not my fault), I admit I was unclear on whether I continued to agree to be bound by the agreement, and thus I do not context being blocked for my human error.

Since then, we agreed here:

"That said, 2 article edits is too few, especially if we stick to a hard 1 revert per day. With that I think 5 edits a day would be reasonable, but still keep edits well thought out. For sake of clarity lets define a day for these purposes as a 24 hr calendar UTC day. You may want to set your preferences to a 0 UTC offset to make that easier. - Taxman ^Talk 12:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Yes it's 5, and it's absolute. I also don't think we need to wait for more agreement since we're expanding the agreement, not constricting it. 5 should allow for more flexibity in improving, but still force thought out edits. I also think we should allow each talk response to be 150-200 words, as 50 is too constricting to get a point accross or make a proposal. I will also stick to my stance that changing the meaning of a paragraph back to one's preferred version, even if not strictly a revert will count as one for the purposes of this agreement. I'm fully prepared to make the blocks and I'm sure others can step in if I'm not able to get to it. 12hrs first transgression, doubling each time thereafter. It's not that hard to stick to the agreement, so that should be reasonable. - Taxman ^Talk 19:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)"

• Revision as of 19:01, 14 September 2005
• Taxman (Talk | contribs)
• Memorial Edit - agreed

That said, here are my conclusions: (1) I don't need a reason to void my agreement: I am an honest person, and I gave my word to be bound by this agreement to help avoid an edit war. I can "withdraw" my word, just as honestly (and I need NOT give a reason: Just "I'm withdrawing.") To be fair, however, I will abide by our agreement for 24-hours --or until all the "active" editors (those who've posted these past two (UTC) days) log on & get a chance to read it (whichever is less). That would be (starting with Revision at 17:43, 23 September 2005 in talk) FuelWagon, Marskell, Taxman, Ann Heneghan, and GordonWatts (me) (not counting Zoe, who merely reverted but didn't participate in talk, and a few sockpuppets).

"I agreed to the agreement for the unblock, and now I withdraw my agreement, effecting in 24-hours or less; If that is unacceptable, then you may protect, but it is my right to withdraw."

(2) As a practical matter, the agreement here did not prevent FuelWagon from messing up the links section and removing some links here that many others here had agreed were necessary: "The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go. Sorry, but as we told you, properly summarizing this article will take some time. - Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)" (In fact, here, I removed all the links to sites I once managed, per that agreement -except one which covers events not covered by other news media; We must not exclude facts to effect "vanity-link-revenge," especially where the use has been vetted and approved.)

(3) Our agreement to limit edits, actually in truth, was a violation of Wikipedia policy: We all (myself included) were in error here:

Wikipedia:Consensus says that "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)," which I read to mean that the our consensus to limit edits to 5 per day did not Trump User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles, which says in point three that "3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred." However, I should have made note of this policy more clearly when breaking the agreement, so I don’t protest my 12-hour block: You acted in good faith.

CONCLUSION: I “withdraw” from this agreement, because (1) It’s my sovereign right to withdraw just as much as it is to accept; (2) This agreement hasn’t helped stop damage to the work that was accepted by a wide consensus (and did not leave anything out), but, instead, has made it confusing to edit; and, (3) I withdraw because this agreement was apparently in violation of policy and not needed except in emergency cases (read: Edit war, which is over).

THEREFORE, I will accept these terms only for the time allotted above (to be fair and give everyone fair notice) -re 5 edits/day in both talk and article, and 1 revert/day as we defined.--GordonWatts 19:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, the only reason you're withdrawing from this is because you want to reinsert your vanity links. First of all, it was a motion that was dismissed, so the importance of the motion is minor. it's clear you goal is to cut anything to get the article short enough to meet FA requirements, but keep in some minor court motion that was dismissed because that motion links to your personal website. This isn't for the benefit of the article, it is for your own benefit. FuelWagon 19:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon, the only reason you're withdrawing from this is because you want to reinsert your vanity links." False! I removed three such links. See this page's discussion on that point. The remaining link, as I discuss, was approved specifically by the admin overseeing this and also tacitly by ALL other members who all this time have not objected. If, however, you can verify this court hearing (which did occur: See court docket) by another (non-Register) link, fine with me, but I was there in the court room, and I was the reporter assigned, and I can tell you: No other news media showed up. And, no, I'm not the "only reporter" for that paper, as I discuss elsewhere. We have numerous contributing writers!--GordonWatts 02:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, just so you know 3 is not a consensus. Keep it up. FuelWagon 20:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"not a consensus"? Yes it is: here we see overwhelming consensus to split the article, and here, the FA-editor, who is an admin, bureaucrat, and moderator, tells you that you are wrong. Get it in your head: You are wrong. Be a man, like I have been: Accept when consensus voted us down on the article length issue.--GordonWatts 02:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

the register

I just spent some time googling for Gordon Watt's "The Register". I can find nothing that separates "The Register" from his personal pages at geocities and aol.com. As far as I can tell, Gordon created "The Register" as his personal online newspaper, declared himself "editor in chief", and started publishing her personal opinion as newspaper articles. I think someone's personal page, especially someone with a severe bias on this case, should not qualify as a notable source in this situation. If someone can show me a link to "The Register", show me that it wasn't just some pet project of Gordon's, I'd appreciate it. FuelWagon 20:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Along those lines, you also said here that: "Gordon, the AOL and Geocities website are personal sites. Anyone could create a page there." When you made your recent revert, I don't see you saying anything about the Purple Kangaroo website, (note "8" in the references section), which is also on GeoCities: http://www.geocities.com/purple_kangaroo_angela/Malpractice/malpractice5nov1992michael.txt So, I think you are making a personal attack. What other conclusion could I come to? I'll assume good faith and allow an answer here. "I can find nothing that separates "The Register" from his personal pages at geocities and aol.com." False! I am be far not the only writer there -it is not "my" page: See e.g., this lengthy explanation, with links to many other writers -not just "Gordon Watts." "If someone can show me a link to "The Register", show me that it wasn't just some pet project of Gordon's, I'd appreciate it." You promise that you'd sure appreciate it, but when I showed you the links, you didn't keep your promise, **sigh**.--GordonWatts 02:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

the pope

Gordon, somehow you always manage to mention the pope "involvement came in the form of various statements by the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope John Paul II, generally in opposition to the way the American court system handled the affair." without out ever mentioning any other POV about the same topic. This violates NPOV. FuelWagon 20:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like that section, then add a few sentences about the "other point of view," but don't revert a whole scad of edits, representing hours of work!--GordonWatts 02:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The revert of Sept 26, 2005: Discussion in talk page

When I say in edit comments to "see talk," it's here.--GordonWatts 03:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Vanity links removed and references re-inserted

I removed ALL "vanity" links; only one link to a story I wrote remains in references: It's the only online reference to verify this event; One of my writer's stories also stays, as this is her story, not mine: No vanity there. See above before discussing this topic.--GordonWatts 03:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • Gordon, it's your website, therefore it's vanity. Dancing around doesn't change that, lawyerly obfuscation doesn't change that, dragging in websites not being inserted by their owners doesn't change that. It's yours, it's vanity, deal with it. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Vanity_page is good reason to NOT add links that appear “vanity“: "The insertion of links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages." However this isn’t absolute: These edits "may be deemed as vanity edits," not "shall" be deemed. Indeed, Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability mandate that we cite sources. Period. You're wrong here, Calton; however, if I could find alternate online sources I would. But I was the only reporter at one hearing, yet that Terri Law‘s hearing, in a court a few blocks from my home, was NOT negligible: It was history, which should be reported. Period. Besides, the article link is to the paper, not to my personal site, GordonWatts.com. I don't think I’ll become popular for this statement, but "citing your sources” is rock solid (and very good!) policy. The only valid argument comes from Jdavidb's comment below that I cite the primary sources: He’s right: When adding attribution to a recent veganism edit, here, I was about to cite my website, but, instead, I cited the book from which I derived the quote; In this case, I was the reporter, and thus I can't get any more primary than that.--GordonWatts 23:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • With regard to the issue of "vanity links", this comment (on a different talk page) comes from a Wikipedian I respect a lot. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 07:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

If you personally run a website, you should not link to it in Wikipedia. If it is really significant, other people will link to it. In fact, you shouldn't link to a website in Wikipedia if you really want to increase its visibility even if you're not the site owner (i.e., driving traffic to a web forum you love.) It's just not the way things should be done. That goes for promoting your writers' stories, as well. Leave it to somebody else to cite if they think it is significant.

Technically your site doesn't verify anything. You had to have had some source to have the information. That source should be cited, rather than your site. Jdavidb 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

"TERRI made credible statements"

Michael did make "credible" according to the court, but I’ll change this to read "Terri made credible statements" about her wishes, as Wagon's version sounds better.--GordonWatts 03:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The matter of the Pope

Wagon contested this matter in his revert, so I'll add in something to balance.--GordonWatts 03:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Misc.

I added back one of Wagon's contributions which Marskell removed, Revision on 20:16, 25 September 2005 GordonWatts (Compromise for dispute between FW & Marskell).

Consensus on article length

Here, Taxman says: "so instead of complaining about the removed material write a summary," and here, Mark, a bureaucrat, says "[article length] changes [that Gordon made] were definetely for the better, your editorial opinion not withstanding," in other words, you're wrong. See also: here.--GordonWatts 03:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop calling it consensus, Gordon. The consensus was only that the article was too long for FA status. That isn't "consensus" to cut the legal history. And as far as consensus on this article in particular, 3 is not a consensus. 10 years of information about Terri is now gone. That it is in another article only means the article has been split in two, not shortened in any meaningful way, just shortened in a "what's the word count" way. FuelWagon 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Article RfC sources

Gordon Watts continues to insert the following links

1. ^ From Staff Reports. (Watts, Gordon W., Editor-in-Chief) "Lakeland Appeals Court holds Oral Arguments for Terri's Law," The Register, June 14 2004 link mirror link

1. ^ Ford, Cheryl, R.N. "News Coverage of Terri Schiavo's family's challenge to Mike Schiavo's guardianship," The Register, June 16 2004 link mirror link

"The Register" claims to be an online newspaper, listing Gordon Watts as "editor in chief", but to the best of my knowledge, "The Register" is little more than a webpage that Gordon Watts created and started posting his opinions about the Terri Schiavo case. It isn't a newspaper in any sense of the word. It doesn't even appear to be a website run by any sort of organization or a group of people. It appears to be run by Gordon Watts himself, directly, having appointed himself "Editor in chief" of his own webpage, and running a one-man website trying to pass itself off as an "online newspaper".

Gordon Watts explains here that the homepages for "The Register" are

http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/

and

| http://www.geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/

These pages are nothing more than free personal pages that anyone can create on aol or geocities.

He then explains here that other people write articles for "The Register". And cites for example an article "passed on by Cheryl Ford, RN" [2] and "Letters to the Editor" written by people to Gordon Watts, editor in chief [3].

It would seem that "The Register" is little more than Gordon's personal opinion on the Terri Schiavo case. And he continues to push to have wikipedia articles reference his websites.

He has also inserted a "Copyright Template" a couple of times at the top of the talk page that says "The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from User:GordonWatts".

And he also inserted a "You have new messages" banner on the Terri Schiavo talk page [4] and on his talk page [5] that actually links to his home page.

As far as I can tell, "The Register" is nothing more than a personal website run completely by Gordon Watts and he seems bent on using links on wikipedia to increase traffic to his own site, of using wikipedia to promote his personal site, and using the Terri Schiavo to advertise his name. FuelWagon 21:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My short and sweet comment: neither of these links belong. At all. --Marskell 22:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Links to the Watts site should be judged by the same criteria as all other links. That he is the editor is irrelevant. The size of the editing staff is irrelevant. The only questions that would concern an NPOV encyclopedia entry are: how relevant is the information on the site, how balanced is the information, how factual is the information, does any POV information balance opposing views in the entry? --Black Angus 23:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Links to the Watts site should be judged by the same criteria as all other links. They have been. They were found wanting. They go, Gordon Watts' tireless self-promotion notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you follow the links? I assume not. Marskell 23:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales and sources

Jimbo Wales posted this on the Karl Rove talk page regarding the sort of sources to quote:

"My opinions about this matter are not particularly complicated: sources have to be handled with care, and citing extremely biased sources without qualification is a very bad thing. (I should note that in order to maintain my own impartiality in this little discussion, I've chosen not to even look at what sources are being disputed here.) I will give an example that might be pertinent: citing Indymedia (or similar) for anything factual having to do with Karl Rove would be quite a bad idea for the twin reasons that Indymedia is not a reliable news source and they would tend to have a strong bias against Rove. Citing a reputable news source like the Guardian would be fine, even though they would also tend to have a strong bias against Rove, because while the Guardian has a certain 'spin', it is also a reliable source for basic facts. If there actually is a legitimate controversy about the facts, it should be easy enough to find multiple reputable sources on different sides of the issue." --Jimbo Wales [6]

I would say that "The Register" is neither reliable with the facts Gordon presents or the facts that Gordon ignores and does not present, nor is it unbiased, given how Gordon likes to tout his court case he brought on Terri's behalf and given his POV editing on the Terri Schiavo article itself. FuelWagon 02:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To Calton: Vanity links: Now Removed per User:GordonWatts

Notice: Under the text move guidelines (a proposed policy), I am moving text from the Terri Schiavo article to the two related talk pages (this one and the "Featured Article" talk page). Here is the text removed from that page: [7]

• The Register's compilation The Register's mirror link

• Watts, Gordon W. "Living Wills: Unexpected Weaknesses." The Register, 11 April 2005. ^{[8] [9]}

• The Register mirror link

Edit summary:

Current revision GordonWatts (Talk | contribs) Removing links that would give the appearance of impropriety and biased conflict of interest related to vanity links

PS: I give credit to Taxman for reminding me of my responsibilities here: "The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go...- Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)" (quoting him from the Featured Article project page)

--GordonWatts 00:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

PS, Calton: If you still don't get it, read Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which supercede any vain concerns of yours.--71.101.155.247 00:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I get it all right, Mr. Anonymous Proxy, and all of Gordon Watts' overheated prose, eye-straining formatting, and Johnny Cochran desk-pounding doesn't change a thing.

Don't make insulting comments about me being logged out; Even if I were anonymous, the reasons were given in edit comments; however, to verify that you're wrong to insult me here, plz see Bug Report number: Bugzilla 310129 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310129 to verify that your claims are false. Calton: Assume Good faith, little brother. As to your revert, your claims of vanity links are false: #1, I removed them -read the post above -the one with your name in it; #2, I obtained outside permission -both from an admin -and in accordance with policy. The article needs to cite its sources. Consensus -even if it went against me here -is overridden by policy: Wikipedia:Consensus says in part that "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)," including those cited in the edit comments -which you illegally reverted -illegal in the sense that it violated the policy cited in edit comments.--GordonWatts 02:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

And since you claim to "get it", how's about some actual relevant quotes instead of empty blustering handwaving? --Calton | Talk 02:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"And since you claim to "get it", how's about some actual relevant quotes instead of empty blustering handwaving?" For quotes to policy, see directly above.--GordonWatts 02:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Calton: Assume Good faith, little brother. Assume, yes; apply blindly, no. You've not only used up every scrap of possible good faith, you've taken out long-term mortgages on future good faith: your "good faith" account is deeply in the red and on the verge bankruptcy.

As for your claims: #1 is false, and so is #2 (I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough...).

"I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough..." I didn't say that: False: I quoted someone else who said that, so do not misquote me here.--GordonWatts 04:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

And where are the relevant quotes from Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability? Didn't they teach you proper citation in law school? --Calton | Talk 04:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"law school" That was not my major. Did you not read my user page? I am a scientist.--GordonWatts 04:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon again falsely accuses FuelWagon of violating Policy here:

Wagon removed the template here that I placed in talk here, and that I just now RE-placed.

This is not a "vanity" template: It is not in the article, but hidden here in talk.

I don't like this policy, as it makes me look self-serving and vain, but it is policy -according to User:Angela, who is one of the top authorities in Wikipedia: [10]

Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_permission states in no uncertain terms that "You should add a note to the effect that permission has been confirmed on the article's talk page (not in the article itself), but avoid disclosing unnecessary personal details such as email addresses or telephone numbers. You may wish to use the {{confirmation}} template for this purpose."

Wagon, don't tinker with policy here. I think I'll append this to my complaint on Jimbo's page.--GordonWatts 02:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Gordon, when I deleted teh template, I forgot to delete the associated photos on the article. I've corrected that now. The picture or Terri's headstone is irrelevant. It can just as easily be quoted, and text is far more readable than a fuzzy image. And I have no clue why you added a picture to a cemetary. Neither one of these photos have anything to do with the actual issues that surrounded Terri or made her notable in the first place. And they surely don't tell us anything about her. We wouldn't include a picture of Terri's car, for the same reason that her car is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what kind of car she drove. And it doesn't matter what the entrance to her the cemetary where she's buried looks like. I can only assume that you added this photos in an another one of your efforts to win "featured article" status. Anyway, it's fixed now. FuelWagon 03:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think GordonWatts should be using this article to link to pages on his own website. Rhobite 04:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My website is http://GordonWatts.com -- The Register is not "my" website: We have numerous editors. See e.g.:

http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/TerrisLawPressRelease.html

mirror at

http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/TerrisLawPressRelease.html

http://www.geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/Letters.html

mirror at

http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/Letters.html

http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/TerrisLawHearing06-14-2004.html#QuoWarranto

mirror at

http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/TerrisLawHearing06-14-2004.html#QuoWarranto

etc...--GordonWatts 05:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait, a Geocities site with your name in the URL isn't your website? That doesn't pass the giggle test. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't judge a book by its cover.--GordonWatts 05:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to say I agree with Gordon in this case, that (given the controversy about the gravestone) at least one picture of it is appropriate. →Raul654 06:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What controversy? The "I kept my promise" bit is the only "controversial" piece, and how is it that we can't simply quote the text on the gravestone, rather than have to use a photo? Also, there are two "fair use" pictures in the article. Adding a GFDL photo doesn't change the fact that their are two fair use photos in the article. If fair use photos aren't allowed for FA status, then adding a completely unrelated picture doesn't fix anything. FuelWagon 23:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Your logic on this escapes me. GFDL pictures of Featured articles are A Good Thing; fair-use images are very-bad-but-sometimes-necessary (in particular when there are no alternatives, which I think applies in this case). So using the fact that there are two (jusifiable, IMO) pictures claimed as fair use to justify removing the GFDL picture is... mystifying. →Raul654 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

My logic is fairly straightforward. FA status is apparently not granted when "Fair Use" photos are used. There are two fair use photos in the article. The picture of Terri at the top and the CAT scan image are both being used under "Fair Use". Having Gordon add a picture licensed GFDL doesn't fix the "Fair Use" problem. The other bit of logic is that the only thing about the gravestone that is even remotely relevant is the bit of text "I kept my promise". That would be better quoted as text than as presented as a photo. Is that less mystifying? FuelWagon 01:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I have reinserted one – the one that I thought was more relevant. I think to have two would be unbalanced, since the article isn't full of photos in every section. I'd also like to point out that it was not Gordon who placed a photo of Terri's grave there in the first place. As far as I remember, it was User:Neutrality. Gordon simply replaced a "Fair Use" image with a photo he had taken himself, which wouldn't have copyright problems. But the idea of having a photo of the grave did not come from Gordon. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 06:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

A photo of Terri Schiavo's gravestone does nothing to improve the article. it is irrelevant to the disputes surrounding the last 15 years of her life. The text can be inserted in the article without a picture and nothing is lost. The picture adds nothing. I don't care if it was Gordon's idea or not. I never supported a photo of the gravestone, but now Gordon is using it as an excuse to insert his name at the top of the talk page. this photo is as irrelevant as showing a picture of a 1986 Chevy Impala with the caption "Terri's car, before her collapse". So what? Neither one makes the article any better. And I don't care about the "fair use" issue either. We don't insert pointless photos that are GFDl just so we can ignore the other photos that are "All Rights Reserved" and are inserted under "Fair Use" law. Who cares what the gravestone looks like? The only dispute around the gravestone is the text "I kept my promise". You don't need a picture to show that. FuelWagon 23:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I took a look at the articles that use the copyright template at the top of the page. Most of them are vanity pages.

I don't think three images are too many for an article of this length. Raul commented above that an image of the grave is appropriate. I agree. Jonathunder 23:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think three images are too many either. That isn't the point. The point is that the only dispute around the gravestone is the text printed on the gravestone. We don't need a picture of the gravestone, we can just quote it. The other point is that the quixotic pursuit of "Featured Article" status has shown that "Fair Use" images are a problem for getting FA support. The picture of Terri Schiavo at the top of the article and the picture of the side-by-side cat scans are Fair Use. They are not licensed GFDL. So adding a GFDL photo doesn't help FA status. the problem is the other photos are fair use. and you need to fix them, not try to add photos in an attempt to cover up the fact that there are two photos copyrighted "All Rights Reserved" and we're invoking "Fair Use" to insert them in the article. FuelWagon 23:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wagon, skip on down below to Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Brief_Reply_by_Gordon_on_several_points -I think all your questions are answered. PS: There really needs to be 2-3 pics in that section, but I'm waiting for consensus to catch up with beauty in this instance.--GordonWatts 01:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, please review the meaning of the word "brief" before you use it again. No, that section doesn't need 2-3 pics. It doesn't need any. FuelWagon 02:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

10 or 20 pics? Yeah, that would be great -especially since I can't read: I just love them pretty photos. Could you put them in?--GordonWatts 02:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I'm getting puzzled by your persistence in a relatively unimportant matter. When Neutrality put a photo of the grave in the article, I don't recall that you objected strongly enough even to comment on it. (Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, can you provide a diff?) But when Gordon adds the same photo, with no copyright problems, you object so strongly that you remove it twice! If you think that having a photo of the grave is ruining the article, why didn't you say anything about Neutrality's? And if you just feel that it's not necessary, then why do you keep trying to take it out? I can understand that you'd feel obliged to intervene – even to the extent of getting into an edit war – if Gordon were inserting text that you thought was very POV. That would, presumably, be a matter of standing up for what you believed in. But the photos? Well, it's good web design to have a certain number of photos for a longish article, because it makes it easier on the eye to read long sections of text when they're broken up by photos. I like the photo. Others like the photo. It's not doing any harm. It's not irrelevant. It makes the page look nicer, and makes the article easier to read. I can understand an edit war over something that violates your principles. But why edit war over something that you just think is unnecessary? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 09:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"in a relatively unimportant matter" That claim swings both ways, Ann. If it really is an unimportant matter, then why all the hubbub? Why all pushback from Gordon and the likes of you to keep a pointless photo in the article? What, exactly does the article lose if the photo is removed? Nothing. That's what. So why Gordon's quixotic insistence to keep a pointless photo in the article when it clearly add nothing? It's a relatively unimportant matter? Sure, tell that to Gordon. Tell him to remove a relatively unimportant photo. If not, I can only assume its a certain favoritism at work. FuelWagon 02:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Re Photos: #1: Neutrality initially placed the grave photo, and #2: I replaced his Fair Use pic with a GFDL one as Jimbo asks us to try to do; #3, Marskell preferred 2 instead of 3 photos, but photos nonetheless; #4: Mark, the FA-editor opined in favor of photos. I think he is right since more GFDL pics make the Fair Use percentage less, meaning that our work is not entirely copyrighted material (a no no). Study copyright law to understand this nuance: It is "percentage" of total, not absolute numbers. #5: Ann has also tried to reason with you; The only people who agree with you are editors whom you draw in to play revert wars, such as Calton, an editor who does not edit on this article, and thus should not have any say so. Thus, you are outnumbered 5-to-1, and are tempting me to call for an RfC, Marskell's promise to defend you notwithstanding.

Re The Article: You are destabilizing the article with your antics. Stop.

Re the "references" section: You damaged the references section; Unless you know how to use "ref" and "note" tags, don't tamper with it.

Re Legal Section: If you really want to move this material out of the main article, either complain loudly one more time, and I will move it for you (so the article's references aren't damaged). Scratch that: The "Terri's Law" stuff belongs in the main article, because it is part of the Government involvement -but if you can get sufficient consensus to move it, I will be glad to move it to the sub-article for you -but not until you discuss it with others. The other stuff above is quite clearly against you --I have tried working with you, but you are tempting the fates. Watch it.

--GordonWatts 03:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

More comments for today, 28th Sept: Angela supports your request, Wagon

See this diff, in which User:Angela, a very high ranking authority in Wikipeida, confirms FuelWagon's request that I don't need the template in the talk page regarding the photos I released under GFDL. (She answered in the Revision as of 10:21, 28 September 2005 in her talk page.)--GordonWatts 20:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments about 28 Sept 2005 edits from Gordon

I was about to make the same objections as Ann had made, but she beat me to it; Since I had noticed that Wagon never complained about Neutrality’s photo edit back then, and was getting ready to ask the same question, this then is a real and relevant point/

Now, today, I fixed the references section, and, let me be very clear: I am not in a good mood now: I went to extra special trouble to make sure that the links to any "Gordon" or "The Register" sites are hidden and not in the text, but I am leaving them in hidden comments, because future editors must have a chance to see how we cite our sources, and they can add them if and when they choose. I am not adding links to my newspaper because I shall not give the appearance of bias; I will hold myself to a higher standard.

OK, why am I in a bad mood? Well, my computer screen incessantly blinks, more so when the weather is damp and moist. (We have NO working air conditioner in my home; We're poor, lol, so damp moisture in the air affects my computer, and I've found I can reset the resolution multiple times to somehow fry away some of this effect, maybe electro-evaporating dampness in the computer monitor -the screen.)

Additionally, both of arms have become chronically sore from over-use on the computer, so when I have added that edit to fix the references section (whose numbering was damaged by Wagon and other editors -carelessly/accidentally), I do not want to see a revert: I have bent over backwards to make everyone happy, and my father thinks that this place is full of idiots who continue to try and delete my pictures after (as he puts it) jeopardized myself and safety by driving many, many miles to take some photos and (I presume) do other work. (Lastly, I need to take time off from editing to "get a job" --I'm poor and must pay back the College Loan, so I don't have any extra time for people to delete good edits that are fair, expecially when I have removed all the links that Wagon hates.)

I have granted every request regarding vanity links and things -even to the point of not citing sources -so, if anyone starts reverting and deleting, then I will guarantee World War III. The only area of uncertainty is that maybe a news story similar to that of Cheryl Ford's news report (she contributed one story to my paper) might be found elsewhere (someone who is less over-worked care to ask Google.com?), but the Oral Arg. story was only covered by one news reporter: me. So, while I shall not post it, nonetheless, to cite sources, it needs to at least stay in hidden comments: If anyone starts getting on my bad side, I will then post it for public view, and simply say "citing sources" overrides "vanity," the latter being not 100%, the former being policy. OK, now can everyone get along here?--GordonWatts 19:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)