From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
• DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
• DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

• This archive page covers approximately the dates between September 22, 2005, and November 05, 2005.

• Post replies to the main talk page, copying and pasting the section to which you are replying, if necessary. To post a reply, you merely click on the appropriate 'Edit' tab, and then you type in your comments and click on 'Save page' -unless, of course, you want to preview it first, in which case you would click on 'Show preview'. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

• Please add new archivals to User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom/Archive06. Thank you.--GordonWatts 05:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Note: If you post a message to my page, and I delete it, it is likely because I did read it and added to the archives. As others sometimes do, I also sometimes delete or archive messages. This is not meant to offend you, but I like my page neat and clean.--GordonWatts 10:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mess'ge rec'd

Plz plz don't mark your edits as minor. You just cut the article in half and marked it minor! Also, do bear in mind the agreement: 5 edits right? You've made 33. I was in the middle of making an edit myself but couldn't do it because of your editing. I will make a comment on the FA request. Plz you can answer on my talk page but keep it short. Marskell 17:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The "Short" version: I had competing themes: Limited numbers of edits (I had forgotten about that, since it seemed related to the edit war, which fizzled out), and the reduction to the article size.

I had decided to not edit, so the limitations on editing 4-5 times/ day were forgotten, but your buddies did not like Mark's analysis that the article length was OK -and voted me and him down by consensus.

So, I had to address it. I did not change anything substantively except some abbreviation of words to numbers, and some contractions. (EG, instead of "two years" it became "blah blah blah for 2 years" and instead of "said that Terri could not do this" is became "said that Terri couldn't do this")

OK, Taxman said that if it was constructive edits, we could exceed --and this was "constructive."

Let's meet on the Terri talk page --and-- the Featured Article nomination talk page, OK?--GordonWatts 18:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: The reduction in size was a "minor edit" because it did not change the substance of the article."--GordonWatts 18:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you misunderstand what a minor edit is. People will actually miss the fact that you have split the article in two if they are not watching minors on their watchlist. This is a far from a minor change as I can imagine. You should've brought it up on talk. Marskell 18:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't need to bring it up in talk, since "talk" brought it up to me -eg, the "Featured Article" talk brought it up to me and was quite clear. I did the only logical thing Mr. Spock could've done: REduced the article size by a split.--GordonWatts 18:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

But they were not minor edits and marking them as such is very bad form. They were also far more in number than the agreement called for. I certainly don't recall saying constructive edits could exceed the agreed limit, in fact I recall saying we should stick strictly to the limit. I'm not interested in blocking you, but please follow the agreement. And the way you misquote and misrepresent people is quite annoying. There is a lot more to go on the article, see my most recent comments on the FAC entry. - Taxman ^Talk 16:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"And the way you misquote and misrepresent people is quite annoying." As I've said before, if I misquote or misrepresent (it happens; we're all human), please cite the exact diff and quote me. Thx.--GordonWatts 16:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see where you think I misquoted you. Yes, I did say somewhere that I didn't think you'd mind me going over the agreed upon limit since you say here in the Revision as of 11:32, 13 September 2005 that "I'll agree to it, and 2 edits a day is probably too little if someone is actually improving, but we can expand that if the article is improving." Now, I also saw later where you said that five edits was the absolute maximum, but I had forgotten that -selective memory due to the fact that I thought that I would not ever need to edit the article again extensively (except for occasional typos) --so I forgot that. Sorry. I think that I never fully agreed to that, but I don't know. In any case, when the new situation developed (I was monkey-jumped with complaints of article length), then I reacted logically; I reduced the article size, and I did it little by little (by the inch, it's a cinch; My the mile, takes a while) --so I did not edit it all at once, because I didn't want to overload my poor brain, lol.--GordonWatts 16:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Watts

I know you're on a "wikibreak", well I just came back from my short one. I'd like to thank you for all you've done. I've dropped my fascist ideals, and now love and respect Democracy. Also I'm slowly becoming a Christian. You've been extremely helpful to me. I've quit my job, and I'm completely fixing my life now. I'm going to get my daughter back, and I'm going to leave Washington D.C, a city which I have much hatred towards. Thank you again. The Fascist Chicken 21:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the family! Yes, I'm taking time off now, and I realize I've overextended myself sometimes. Seeing many other people (you and others) take a "wikibreak" reminded me that maybe I should too. Thank you for inadvertently helping me here. I looked up the dictionary definition of Facism, and see that it is quite authoritarian, usually a bad thing, but we do need discipline and order in our lives. There is good in all ideals, and weaknesses too.

By the way, if you don't mind, what type of job did you have, and why are you quitting it? To move back closer to family and friends. I'm glad to hear things are going well. Lastly, did you take a look at the research pages I mentioned last time? Take care,--GordonWatts 11:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The job that I used to have was well I was a Software Engineer, I know putting my college major to good use, ha ha? I quit the job, because I never really liked it, and I know that their has to be a better job for me out there. I'm thinking I'm going to move into Maryland, then I'll find a job there. Finally yes, I did read those research pages you mentioned, they helped a lot. Thanks again. The Fascist Chicken 22:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"...they helped a lot. Thanks again." No problemo.--GordonWatts 23:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Limiting number of edits

Hi, Gordon, do be careful not to go over the number of edits agreed on the Terri Schiavo talk page, even if it's not a violation of official Wikipedia policy. I'd hate to see you getting blocked. Hope all is well with you. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

And I've been away from the Terri Schiavo article for a while, but isn't there an agreement about the number of posts to the talk page as well? I don't think you've gone above it, but just in case you're about to . . . Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you need to use the "preview" button more. Then you wouldn't need to fix the formatting after posting. Anyway, do be careful. Would it have been so terrible if the bad formatting had stayed there for a few hours? :-) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 01:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Would it have been so terrible if the bad formatting had stayed there for a few hours? :-) Yes. It would not have been readable. On the one hand, I was misled by the larger consensus of the Featured Article page, and also I mis-interpreted some of Taxman's comments and forgot others of his -and either forgot or thought the new consensus over-rode the past word that I had given. On the other hand: Wikipedia:Consensus says that "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)," which included making constructive edits according to the recent consensus in the Featured Article project page for Terri's article. I gave a more detailed explanation above -and in Schiavo-talk.

PS: I try to use the "preview" button: Your idea is 100% correct and excellent, --however, one can only do so much -and can not anticipate every edit in advance -that is why it is best to incrementally work so you "Save your work," and don't get confused.--GordonWatts 01:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I have blocked you per the agreement. If we're to keep it going in the future, we need to stick to it now. It's only for 12 hours, so go get something else done that you need to. Sorry if it was an inconvenient time. - Taxman ^Talk 15:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see this has happened, Gordon. You know that you can still edit your talk page, but not any other page. (I could be wrong, but I think that if you attempt to edit any other page, the twelve-hour block resets itself.) If you leave a message here at your talk page, people will probably see it. Oh, and I'm sending a message of complaint to Blogger, so hopefully the site will be taken down. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 16:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Ann. You are right that I can edit my own page; I have never been blocked before, so this will be a "new learning experience." Anyhow, I did indeed broke the agreement because I thought that the consensus of the larger group (to reduce article length) over-rode that of the smaller group (to limit edits) and "changed consensus." (I couldn't reasonably reduce article length with only 5 edits per day. However, the Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, says in part 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." While I should have made note of this more clearly when breaking the agreement, I simply thought that consensus had changed.

That being said, FuelWagon has messed up the references section by inserting text and "ref" tags without the proper "note" tags. Also, the article length is far too great to qualify as a Featured Article, and in this, he went against the consensus in the Featured Article talk page, which was a much larger consensus than we have here in our talk page. Those editors may not edit Terri Schiavo on a daily basis, but their voice counts here in Wikipedia too, for consensus, doesn't it?--GordonWatts 16:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

To your last point yes, and I said as much on the talk page. - Taxman ^Talk 18:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I rested up quit well on my "day off," Taxman, but, instead of sitting in front of my computer on the Sabbath, like I'd planned, I was on my way to visit a friends church (I almost never go to church -too busy BEING the church than to GO to one, lol), and I had some almost life-threatening excitement from an attempted robber. She didn't get my money but instead had a talk with the police. While this is off-topic, this incident, combined with the Sarahphelpsjr stalker (who claims to be a girl, as I recall), leads me to believe two things: (1) This is the "Year of the Tuff Girl," and (2) Maybe it wouldn't hurt to remove a bit of my personal info from certain web locations, Hmm... PS: I do intend to take responsability for my "five edits/day" misunderstanding, and maybe withdraw from the accord and abgogate. (Is that the right word?)--GordonWatts 17:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I've e-mailed arin-contact@google.com, to complain about the blog. See also WP:ANI. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that 2nd blog, but not big deal to me; Interesting. I have some fan(s)...??--GordonWatts 17:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the register

Gordon, I think you fail to get the point. Where is "The Register's" homepage? It doesn't exist as far as I can tell. pointing to a bunch of links on your personal webspace doesn't count. If you were editor in chief, surely you knew their main URL. What is it? FuelWagon 21:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

>^.^< http://HomeTown.AOL.com/Gww1210

>^.^< http://www.GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313

These are the two "Register" homepages, not to be confused with

http://GordonWatts.com

which is my homepage, entirely distince and different. So, what's the point?--GordonWatts 21:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, the AOL and Geocities website are personal sites. Anyone could create a page there. Anyone. What you're saying is that you created the aol and geocities home pages, called it "The Register", made yourself "Editor in Chief", and basically declared yourself a newspaper. This is not a newspaper. This is your personal page posing as a newspaper. This is neither notable nor reliable as a source. FuelWagon 21:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are you double-indenting? Anyhow, I removed all the "personal" links; As far as the IP address and web address, that is not what makes a site "personal" or "professional." The content does: Don't judge a book by a cover. If you keep it up, I'll insist on inserting ALL of the links back in, since they in fact do belong, but I removed them, to avoid the appearance of "conflict of interest." The one remaining link was accepted by the admin overseeing this project, since it documents an event that is not covered anywhere else. If you can find a link to that even other than the one I provided, then use it, but Wikipedia policy is clear: We must "source" our articles with links to verify the claims we raise in the articles. This is policy. The "vanity" thing is not set in stone: Verifying with links is.--GordonWatts 21:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I disagreed with 100% of your edits. I couldn't fit it all in the edit summary, but tried.

as for "The Register", you haven't replied. You're saying it was a website that you created on your own. You declared yourself a newspaper and editor in chief. You posted your personal opinion about the Terri Schiavo case on a website that you had complete control over, posing yourself to be a newspaper held to journalistic standards or something. Now, you're trying to get URL's to your personal opinion pages embedded in the Terri Schiavo article. Is that about right? This wasn't a newspaper. This was your pet project. It wasn't a corporation or LLC or anything, was it? No one was on a W-2 getting salaried, were they? FuelWagon 21:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

When Cheryl Ford and I covered the two court hereings in question, no, we did not insert our personal opinions; We reported the news in a dry and professional fashion. If you want a paper and want to do reporting, do it, and if you cna find a link to those hearings, other than the ones which have been in the article for quite a while and not objected, then find other links. Otherwise, I will report you for creating a disturbance by violating the consensuc on the two issues, the article length and the vanity dispute. I am prepared to provide evidence of said consensus, but now I have t ogo with my mother and father to help them purchase her a car, and I don't have time for this garbage. Quit your arguing and comply with consensus, even when it goes against you: I am not above bowing to consensus: I accepted the article length thing even when it went against me, and so can you; Now I have to go. Later.--GordonWatts 21:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"I will report you for creating a disturbance by violating the consensuc on the two issues, the article length and the vanity dispute" Uh, Gordon, three editors is not a "consensus". And no matter how many times you try to call 3 editors a "consensus", it won't be one. FuelWagon 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As for your "newspaper", let me make sure I have all teh facts right: (1) you created the web address (2) you didn't incorporate or create a limited liability corporation (3) you didn't pay your "reporters" (4) you didn't charge your "subscribers" (5) you didn't qualify for a press pass. Is that about right? I'll assume a lack of answer to mean that the above points are true. While I'm waiting for your answers, I found this little tidbit recently from Jimbo Wales regarding reliable sources: FuelWagon 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"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 [1]

Enjoy. FuelWagon 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon, the AOL and Geocities website are personal sites. Anyone could create a page there..." then if GeoCities is not a reliable source, why haven't you said anything about this link?

• Notes and references...^ Gerbino, Joanne, Court Reporter. Transcript regarding "BARNETT BANK TRUST COMPANY as Guardian of the Property of THERESA SCHIAVO and MICHAEL SCHIAVO, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. G. STEPHEN IGEL, M.D., Defendant," CASE NO. 92-939-15, Purple Kangaroo Angela Web log, November 5, 1992 link (which link is this: http://www.geocities.com/purple_kangaroo_angela/Malpractice/malpractice5nov1992michael.txt )

It appears that you are selectively picking on links that have to do with me -are you violating "No personal attacks?"

PS: I'm not Karl Rove.

Note that I am not defending the sites where I have been editor, for the sake of defending myself: I removed all the links to sites relating to myself when other sites could verify the same facts; If you can find a news source that depicts that hearing, you may substitute it and remove the link to the story I wrote. Also, here, you made this promise: " 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)" Well, I gave you a lengthy answer on your talk pages with numerous links to work from writers besides "Gordon Watts," and yet you never kept your promise. You said if someone would just show you those links, you'd sure appreciate it -meaninig you would see proof that I wasn't just "pushing "Gordon" links," but no, you never told us what you think about my new proof.

So, now, you ask me (3) you didn't pay your "reporters" Well, I'll answer you if you answer me: Do you get paid to edit Wikipedia? If you don't answer me, then I won't answer you. However, if you say that you aren't paid, then I will say that you have no right to edit here and be "creidible." However, we both know the answer to that. By the way, I've been "up front and honest" about my involvement with a few websites. How do we know you don't edit some websites listed, like, for example, the Purple Kangaroo website -or others? Can you give us any proof? --More important: Does it even matter?

You have raised a number of points which, on the surface to an editor unfamiliar with Terri Schiavo, look valid: You use "vanity links' terminology like you are an authority, but those who edit here have said nothing but praise for my removal of all those links to pages I've managed. Look at Taxman's and Ann's comments -and note also the fact that long after I brought the matter up, no one but YOU has complained here. Feel alone? You should -you are in the wrong in this one.--GordonWatts 01:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

A transcript copied by a third party to a free webhost is far different than a newspaper created by an editor on a free webhost. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Hipocrite, but "different" is not necessarily "worse," and we must comply with the very good policy: We must Wikipedia:Cite_sources to ensure Wikipedia:Verifiability. Usually this can be done by using sites other than The Register, but if no other source is available, then the "vanity" policy (which is really not 100%) must yield to the two aforementioned policies (which are 100%).--GordonWatts 00:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BREAKING NEWS: Open Letter to Admins, Bureaucrats:

I am blocked for accidentally violating a consensus agreement (to limit edits to 5/day) that I thought had been superceded by the more recent consensus to go all out and fix the article size problem. (See my talk page.) This block against me may be in violation of Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, which says in part 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, and I do not ask you to reverse my 12-hour block or take any action against Taxman (the blocking admin). He acted in good faith. I am contacting to let you know that FuelWagon has made a series of edits to the article, which have violently messed up the references section. The last version that I touched was stable. Please take a look at Terri Schiavo. She is sick and needs your help.

PS: I shall contact 2 other admins who are familiar with the FA-nom, in case you are busy when I send this email.

Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, Florida, U.S.A. --GordonWatts 16:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

Don't start and [sic] edit war.

Okay, that was funny. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha. I misspelled --or is it misspelt?

OK, now before you go on an edit war rampage and screw up our Featured Article chances, do read the brief edit comments and talk pages comments (with their little linky linky links), OK?--GordonWatts 04:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hope all is well

How are you doing? You okay? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You are indeed psychic, SlimV: I only took a few hours off to mount a serious preperation for a job search after tangling with spiritual warfare here in the Wiki, but YES, I got asistance from "my God," who moved upon the heart of all involved and provided positive resolution to most of the sticky problems surrounding Terri Schiavo, so far. Thank you for the concern.--GordonWatts 00:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to hear all is well and good luck with the job search. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appeals to Jimbo

I see that you are making (and have made) several appeals to Jimbo on User talk:Jimbo Wales over the course of the last month. I thought you might want to know that Jimbo rarely intervenes on content issues or conflicts like this and when he does his response is usually the long arm of the block or broad proclomation. I can't remember a time when he decided a minor dispute amongst users. You might notice that Jimbo hasn't really been responding to your posts that regularly. You would be better off not constantly asking Jimbo to intervene and instead trying to bring the issue to more users' attention (especially after you told him not a week ago that, " I have no more pressing concerns"). I'd be more involved in the discussion myself, but I fear my POV would too hamper my ability to talk with you fairly. Broken S 01:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

He did look at 1 or 2 of my concerns; Also, some of my concerns are not about me, but are "system wide," justifying my feedback --Further, I have solved some of the problems ---and (see my most recent post) I am asking other users for feedback -so I don;t have to bother Jimbo. I am "balanced" -not lopsided, but thank you for your feedback. You are right about what I said: I hope to stay on wiki-break and work less and rest up more. "I'd be more involved in the discussion myself, but I fear my POV would too hamper my ability to talk with you fairly." I may not agree with people who wanted to pull Terri's feeding tube, but I give their arguments equal reporting fairly in the article on her, and you, likewise, should state your opinions, in talk if there's a problem, and make your arguments to back up your feelings. NOT speaking is the crime: Remember: you're here to make things better, not to "run for office," lol!--GordonWatts 01:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way in response to one of your questions, the new CSD categories do not require a user to be notified before an image is deleted (it only has to be tagged as having no copyright for more than 7 days or be under a non-commercial license). The text is at WP:CSD. Such questions might better be posed at WP:HD or maybe the pump. His actions seem perfectly fine and within bounds. It is the other user who is being uncivil. Broken S 02:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the update, BrokenSegue. I didn't know there was an update on policy here. Yes, the other fellow was uncivil, but. using Occam's Razor, I decided to not address that point. Thx again.--GordonWatts 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

I just wanted to wish you all the best for your job search. Guettarda 03:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you; I can use all the blessings I can get (plus a little extra rest, lol).--GordonWatts 03:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change

Sounds cool. What does it mean? A private in the army of the Lord? A Butcher of problems?

Yes I was thinking about being a "private in the army of the lord", when I came up with the new name. Where did butcher come from? I don't really know, I think it came from stuff that I do, I have written screenplays, and one featured butchers. So I'm guessing that's where that part came from. Private Butcher 01:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool Thanks. In case you're curious as to how I guessed it, I remember my father saying that he was a soldier (private? General? Lieutenant??) in the Army of the Lord, and then I saw your page, and put 2 and 2 together and got 5 1/2. Hey, a friend told me (joke) that this preacher asked one fellow why he didn't come to church except on Christmas and Easter; The preacher said "you ought to join the army of the Lord." The guy said "I am -but I'm in the secret service." (Groan. Hope I didn't offend anybody or anything.) --but it was funny to me!--GordonWatts 01:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Competency

Speaking of which:

• Messages to users go on their TALK pages, not User pages.
• User:AI, a Scientology ax-grinder, has been BANNED indefinitely by Arbcom, or hadn't you noticed?

Trying to drum up assistance from the banned and shunned: always a sign of desperation.

--Calton | Talk 02:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: lovely picture of yourself you posted. Comb your hair much?

• • "Messages to users go on their TALK pages, not User pages." Given the user's less frequent time in Wikipedia (cf: ArbCom problems), he might not see his talk page, so I posted to both places.
  • "User:AI, a Scientology ax-grinder, has been BANNED indefinitely by ArbCom, or hadn't you noticed?" ArbCom also said that "You are instructed to use only this account," which could mean that he can use his talk page -a proxy to verify certification to his potential RfC. You are circumventing:
    • Moral issues: You are indeed guilty of the charges regarding the potential RfC; Do you have a conscience?
    • Practical issues: There are FOUR disgruntled users, at last count. #1:Myself, #2:AI, #3:an anon who was encouraged to register, and #4:Faria -and that's just those I can count. (#'s 5,6, and 7??) As a practical matter, his ArbCom problems do not stand as a block to certification of an RfC by the remaining users. (As a practical matter, though, I admit, it is an UNpaid job to RfC you and tedious and time-consuming -weighing in your favour.)
    • Legal issues: We have a right to file an RfC under current Wikipedia rules.

• • As I said on your talk page: I don't act in revenge, but in prevention, the best medicine, and ounce of which is worth a pound of cure.--GordonWatts 02:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • "P.S.: lovely picture of yourself you posted. Comb your hair much?" Obviously in that picture I did.--GordonWatts 02:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

God, if I had the time to waste or interest, I'd detail the numerous untruths in your messages. Given the user's less frequent time in Wikipedia (cf: ArbCom problems), he might not see his talk page, so I posted to both places is particularly laughable (hint; what's the yellow bar you saw before you came to this page?), and so at odds with reality it's actually funny. The moral pose is also pretty funny.

But you go ahead, Gordon, keep trying to recruit the banned, ostracized, and disgruntled. Given your track record, you'll screw up the RfC filing and it'll be deleted in short order, followed by a 2,000-word garishly formatted screed complaining about how despite doing everything wrong it MUST be reinstated. --Calton | Talk 02:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Given your track record, you'll screw up the RfC filing..." We all make mistakes, but here, you are at a three disadvantages:

• 1: There are four of us, and only two are needed to certify an RfC
• 2: I know the RfC rules -I am no longer a newbie.
• 3: You are my the best player on my team -or, maybe your own worst enemy: You are not likely to change your ways, so you will certainly run into trouble in the future, thus doing my job for me (and saving me time -read the "practical" advantage you have about my being bust and underpaid/ unpaid)

However, if you behave and "thwart," me, I will be a graceful "loser," for I will have lost the battle but won the war -to save your soul -or at least get you to "act like" it was saved. It's your move, Big Dog.--GordonWatts 02:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

At least four users (one is an anon: See my user contributions here are potentially seeking an RfC against you for excessive and unjustified use of reverts. (Typo fixed here in dark blue. See diff: Two users DEFINITELY seek RfC, in case you lost count.--GordonWatts 03:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC))

I'm running late, but I decided to check: guy, that statement is an outright, 100%, unadulterated lie. A falsehood. An untruth. Detached from consensus reality. Having a message left on one's Talk Page does not mean one is seeking anything, at least here on Planet Earth. If this is the standard of truth you bring to your alleged RfC, I haven't a thing to fear.

I know the RfC rules. Gordon, your (less-than-competent) Wikilawyering history makes plain that you don't understand Wikipedia rules, norms, software, or guidelines -- or choose to ignore them for your own ends.

Meantime, real life beckons. Enjoy your little crusade, Don Quixote Lite. --Calton | Talk 02:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"I'm running late, but I decided to check: guy, that statement is an outright, 100%, unadulterated lie. A falsehood. An untruth..." Here at this diff, I clarified that it was a "potential" RfC that they supported, that is, I wasn't sure that they fully intended to support an RfC, but that it was "potential," but, yes, technically, I guess that might otherwise be a lie, but, in the context of my prior caveat and disclaimer that the RfC was merely potential, I would say it was more along the lines of a typo: I shall fix that.--GordonWatts 03:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More Fair Use: A "representative" problem, from Jimbo's talk page

To make the long story short, Revolucions images (two Mississippi flag designs) were uploaded from the Flags of the World website, which does not permit their image to be used on commercial sites (see http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/disclaim.html#cop). This includes us, since May 2005 with a decree by Jimbo. I also happen to contribute to Flags of the World, so I could spot their images instantly (216 pixel height and also the naming system us-ms2001 (United States - Mississippi - Flag design 2001). I have deleted such images like that in the past, and will continue to do so. Several editors from FOTW have gone to other languages and removed their images from the servers. So, I wish to carry out the wishes of FOTW by deleting their images. Don't worry, I can re-draw some, so not every single image can will be lost. Zach (Sound Off) 05:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Good deal.--GordonWatts 05:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cfd

Best of luck on your job search. If you have a second, please vote on this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_29#Category:User_la-N. It was overturned last time because of some jokers. --Flex 15:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reading comprehension problems

Perhaps I should "those with reading comprehension problems" to my mop-up list ("dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical") -- no, too long.

What part of "not worth engaging" did you miss? You certainly missed, in your screwing around with my user page, is that the last complaint was from someone just banned by ArbCom. Really bright of you.

Let's see if you follow this, you logorrheic¹ Robert Bork-wannabe:

• Go away.
• Do not alter, edit, or even touch my user page, user talk page, or any other page in my user space.
• Go away.

¹Ask your mother, she probably knows what it means.

--Calton | Talk 10:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

NO, what you are is a reading-impaired troll. If there's a Troll Hall of Fame, you're bound for it.

And no, you're not a "fellow editor" -- you're barely of the same species as the rest of us humans.

Meantime, a little educational reading for you.

Now Go away --Calton | Talk 10:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I can barely post a reply to your first post without an edit conflict from you posting a "part two" here... but here's my prior response -your new post might have a point, but are you not human too -and subject to an Inflated Self-Assessment?

(1) I have already edited and "left my mark" of a permanent record on your page.

(2) I did not -strictly speaking -act: I (and many others) reacted to your action. So, what if one of them was in trouble with ArbCom. That does not explain the other complaints you have been receiving. There may be a grain of truth in them.

(PS: "Your use page" is really not yours; They all belong to Wikipedia, but I will try to respect your personal space -if that really matters to you.)

(3) While I thought I was mistreated by some of those who participated my recent RfA, I am man enough to admit that some of their criticisms were true and correct: Further, I will add one: I was probably too busy to be an admin. However, to the extent that some probably mischaracterized or misquoted me, I am willing to not be mad at them, as my "Wiki break" notice indicates. I would hope that I too am forgiven when I inevitably make mistakes.--GordonWatts 10:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everything's Fine

Thanks for the message, everything's fine, what happened is explained on my Userpage. Private Butcher 18:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Private Butcher. Glad to hear things are OK.--GordonWatts 17:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images have been listed for deletion

Various image and media files that you uploaded have been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (see the list below). Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Calton | Talk 04:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Calton. Logged and noted.--GordonWatts 17:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] File List

• Image:PhotoByGordonWayneWatts
• Image:PhotoByGordonWayneWatts.pdf
• Image:GordonAndMonteCarloInFrontOfWoodside.jpg
• Image:Small-GordonAndMonteCarloInFrontOfWoodside.jpg
• Image:GordonAndMonteCarloInFrontOfWoodside.pdf
• Image:SchiavoHeadstoneBehindGordon.jpg
• Image:SchiavoHeadstoneBehindGordon.pdf
• Image:BobbyWattsAutoPart.jpg
• Image:BobbyWattsAutoPart.pdf
• Image:Small-BobbyWattsAutoPart.jpg
• Image:Small-BobbyWattsAutoPart.pdf
• Image:WalkwaySchiavoGrave.jpg
• Image:Small-WalkwaySchiavoGrave.pdf
• Image:SylvanAbbeyThroughChevyMonteCarloWindow.jpg
• Image:SylvanAbbey.jpg
• Image:PondInFrontOfSchiavoGrave.jpg
• Image:Small-PondInFrontOfSchiavoGrave.pdf
• Image:SchiavoGrave.pdf
• Image:WoodsideHospice.pdf
• Image:SchiavoHeadstoneAndGrave.jpg

[edit] IFD

The abbreviations for IFD are here - Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion Secretlondon 17:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Secretondon.--GordonWatts 17:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

Hi, Gordon, just to let you know I'm taking a wikibreak, while revising for my exams. To help overcome the temptation, I'm even going to remove Wikipedia altogether from the "Favorites" on my browser. But, don't worry, I will be back at the end of next week. Hope all is well with you. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm technically on wikibreak, too, Ann, but I sometimes stop by for entertainment and diversion from being bored. Thx for the notice - Have fun on your exams.--GordonWatts 23:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just to say

You're a good man Gordon. Not a joke or a duplicitous comment. You gave FW a barnstar today and you need not have. Barnstars are easy like re-directs are easy but someone who's been watching knows if they are in good faith. I said to FW on my talk page (partly in your defence) that "you're obsessed but never mean," which may seem a rather odd way to phrase a compliment, but to unpack it: never being mean (and all that that implies in an ancillary sense: not searching for backhand compliments, not bring up ancillary criticism, not acknowledging a point only to make the person a straw man etc.) is something very few people are able to do. But you do do it (even if there is some obsession with the page involved). So, I thought I would pass along the thought "ya, Gordon is good, kind man" that's been sitting inchoate in my mind and suddenly became clear today. Marskell 01:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

(First some humor: I'll imitate Lt. Comdr. Data from Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation.) "Inchoate?" Ah, yes: In an initial or early stage; incipient; Imperfectly formed or developed; only partly in existence; imperfectly formed; As in: "Incipient civil disorder"; "an incipient tumor"; "a vague inchoate idea." (Actually, I did have to look it up to refresh my memory.) In any case, thanks for the feedback. Whilst I'm not perfect, and, yes, sometimes a little obsessed with getting the job done, I try to be a good neighbor. Considering that we don't get paid to edit, we shouldn't make such a big deal out of things sometimes (even while we try to provide a good encyclopedia), but, contrasting the unpaid editors' jobs with "real life" duties and even eternal considerations, hinting at the "grand scheme" of things from a far-sighted or eternal point of view, things here in the Wiki (and on earth in "this life") are not so bad, huh, and should not (as Wagon might say) be given "undue weight."--GordonWatts 01:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, couldn't have said it better? Or could have!... Or not... Take care, Marskell 01:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unctuousness

Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, would it?

Gordon, you flat-out lied (dissembled, equivocated, misrepresented, prevaricated, phonied up, made falsehoods) about your RfC -- you did not have 3 editors who wanted an RfC against me, you 'left messages on the talk pages of three editors -- one banned user, one anonymous IP who hadn't used that IP in a while, and one user who hasn't edited since September 21st -- none of whom responded. Does Jesus forgive liars as long as they're really earnest, or are you special somehow?

"Does Jesus forgive liars as long as..." Does Jesus forgive anyone, ever? And would you ever need forgiveness, or, did you match His grace and perfection. Am I missing something?--GordonWatts 03:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

So spare me the unctuous and transparently face-saving lies, because not only do I not believe a word of them, they have the same empty, meaningless value as advice from Frank Chu would, and your esteem means as much to me as that of the average paramecium. My opposition to the "dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical" remains -- so you best be careful of what you do.--Calton | Talk 02:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Unctuousness:

1. Characterized by affected, exaggerated, or insincere earnestness: “the unctuous, complacent court composer who is consumed with envy and self-loathing” (Rhoda Koenig).
2. Having the quality or characteristics of oil or ointment; slippery.
3. Containing or composed of oil or fat.
4. Abundant in organic materials; soft and rich: unctuous soil.

I made a typo, and I was man enough to admit my mistake and corrected it. Don't make idle threats: While your premise is sound (editors should be honest), you fail to understand three things on which it is based:

• As a legal matter, lying is not that serious here in Wikipedia (even though it probably should be).
• As a moral matter, I did not intentionally lie: I made a typo in my grammar; That does happen occasionally in humans. Am I human?
• As a practical matter, I don't edit here much any more, and pursuing me (especially in this unpaid job) is not an efficient use of your time, as a "practical" matter.

"...face-saving lies..." Unless you know what was in my mind and heart, you are in no position to say that my "lie" was face-saving. To do so would imply a mind-reading ability that is not present in your race. It is stretching it to even say that I lied, but then again, you've never made a mistake, have you?

--GordonWatts 03:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• One question, Calton: Do you not also read the many feedbacks of those who offer positive feedback to me? (For example the four barnstars on my user page, or Marskell's recent post, or, well, you get the picture.)--GordonWatts 03:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FuelWagon RfC

Hi. I wanted to bring to your attention that an RfC has been posted concerning User:FuelWagon. Please add any comments you believe are appropriate. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] barnstar

Gordon, I don't know how I missed it, but I just noticed you gave me a barnstar. I guess I need to watch my user page more closely. Sorry for the delayed response. Anyway, thanks for the barnstar. FuelWagon 22:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome: As Ann always says, you can put your own user page on your watchlist.--GordonWatts 02:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC feedback

Gordon, PurplePlatypus (I think I spelled that right) mentioned something about making threaded comments on an RfC. Generally, I think threaded comments in an RfC are discouraged on the main page and are encouraged to be moved to the RfC talk page. The other option is to add comments to your section of the RfC, such as "Outside view by Gordon Watts", and say something like "in reply to so-and-so, I'd say this." It's generally encouraged this way to discourage an escalation of things and to allow everyone a chance to say their peace without someone else making it combative. I don't think your comments were combative, so I don't think it's really a problem. But in case you're wondering what PurplePlatypus was talking about, I thought I'd explain. FuelWagon 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting. Logged and noted. (There are two sides to this argument -whether or not to thread comments: A little threading is needed so people can see what you're replying to, but too much is escalation, I think. Thx for the heads up.)--GordonWatts 05:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Mr. Watts

Hi again, its me Quentin. I see that neither of us can seem to become an admin. If you check the RfA, you can see what I'm talking about. Private Butcher 18:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can I get your vote?

I have been nominated for an adminship and I was wondering if I could get your vote. If you feel inclined, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alabamaboy and cast your "yes" or "not in a million years." Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 02:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Story

Thank you Mr. Watts for telling me that story. It was very interesting, and this may be one of the best things I've done. You said that you went to that different church well I've gone to this other wikipedia, well I'll be back soon I said, I won't take very long to return. Probably over a month or so, since I will return once I am an admin at the Simple English Wikipedia. I have written my plan and that's what it'll be. But don't worry I'll be fine, I think this is for the best. Because once I return, I'll have more experience and then I'll work hard at this wikipedia again, and hopefully someone'll nominate me, when I'm good enough to them. I'm actually somewhat glad this happened, since I only came across simple english wikipedia from a user that opposed me. So just remember me, and remember to talk to me every so often, and when I return, I'm sure we can have some "wiki-fun". Private Butcher 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"Thank you Mr. Watts for telling me that story." You're welcome. Truth is stranger than fiction, they say. "I have written my plan..." That is good: God is pleased that you are doing your part and pre-planning, however there is more than meets the eye:

• "A man's mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps and makes them sure." --Proverbs 16:9 (Amplified Bible) [2]

• "The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD." --Proverbs 16:33 (New King James Version) [3]

Editor's Note: A "lot" is like dice: One might "cast lots" and see who draws the "short stick." A better translation is rendered from "The Message" version below:

• "Make your motions and cast your votes, but GOD has the final say." --Proverbs 16:33 (The Message) [4]

I hope this was helpful.--GordonWatts 05:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thanks for revising my comment to say that I posted it on Private Butchter's discussion page, I could have sworn that I put my name and user talk and the time, I even previewed it but sometimes you never, thanks for the fix up!

You're welcome. (The above posted at 06:47, 23 October 2005 by Patman2648) PS: You did it again, but it happens. Take care,--GordonWatts 06:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank You again! and this time I remembered, finally! I've never had done this before ever, even as a noob I still never did this. Take care as well,--Patman2648 11:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Terri16.CroppedPhoto.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Terri16.CroppedPhoto.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-Ashley Pomeroy 20:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Logged and noted Ashley. I voted to delete it unless another user needs it for an article or something. Then, I would support a keep vote.--GordonWatts 02:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: If you post a message to my page, and I delete it, it is likely because I did read it and added to the archives. As others sometimes do, I also sometimes delete or archive messages. This is not meant to offend you, but I like my page neat and clean.--GordonWatts 10:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schavio Images

I am renominating:

• • Image:SylvanAbbey.jpg Cropped version of the above. OR, UE, and OF.
  • Image:PondInFrontOfSchiavoGrave.jpg OR, UE.
  • Image:SchiavoHeadstoneAndGrave.jpg OR.

for deletion. These images are orphaned. They need to be moved to the Commons as Wikipedia is not an image repository. --Thanks Nv8200p (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Gordon

copied from Raul's talk page:

No Gordon, Heidi & Joe do not do the same thing. For openers we are a married couple with one computer. Heidi is blind so I include her in our signature not because she is a separate entity sharing one IP address but rather to include her thoughts in our edits. As our edits are indeed a collaboration we decided to reflect that with our WP signature. --hydnjo talk 23:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So Gordon, please don't use us to compare to anything else. We are beyond comparison thank you. --hydnjo talk 01:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC) ...prior

Of course, I certainly didn't mean to offend you all, Joe; I was just trying to clarify a point; thank you for helping me get the details straight.--GordonWatts 13:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your efforts for Terri Shrivo

Mr. Watts: I commend your efforts to save her from forced starvation, and hope you find a job you enjoy. KAJ 08:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I'lll need all the help I can get in regards to a job: I don't want one out of the field in which I was educated, and that's hard. Take care,--GordonWatts 13:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ordination of women

I edited the article according to what I had entered on the talk page. patsw 01:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Hi, Gordon. I'm delighted you've got a job. I'm very glad for you, and also I do feel that people contribute better to Wikipedia when it's a hobby rather than something that takes over their lives! By the way, "man in the street" got 614,000 results on Google; "man on the street" got 494,000. Take care! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I only got a 597,000-to-494,000 result, but the trend is the same. I stand corrected, but it was close. I wonder what I missed? Maybe grammar is different world-wide, and there may be more Non-American English-speakers -or, maybe I just overlooked some common American grammar trends. Hmm... Thanks for the precise and concise feedback using google. Thanks for the note; I hope I follow the right paths in my career, whatever they may be.--GordonWatts 13:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[5]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005EffK 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)