User talk:A ghost/Archive

Hey there, welcome to the Wikipedia. :) Feel free to drop me a line in case you have any questions. --Sn0wflake 15:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Kool. I used to contribute fairly heavily to a couple of online gaming blogs. This community is an interesting experiment. I had gone thru the tutorial once, but with experience comes Wisdom... --ghost 22:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Human chess

My pleasure. I hope my edits helped you learn something more about the wiki code. Happy editing! Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

All things Terri Schiavo

Culture of Life

I just got your message after I re-added the quote to the article. In my opinion, if one side can call the other side "Nazis," then turnabout is fair play. Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not preclude strong quotes from being included. Dave 05:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for the confusion. Dave 14:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Government involvement

Aloha. I'm not following the use of "Ms." in relation to Schiavo, as that means she was unmarried or divorced, which is not the case. I think we should remove all references to Mrs. or Ms. --Viriditas | Talk 00:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't go replying on my talk page to issues that don't concern me.

I don't want to come around and see this nonsense:

Viriditas wrote, "Aloha. I'm not following the use of "Ms." in relation to Schiavo, as that means she was unmarried or divorced, which is not the case. I think we should remove all references to Mrs. or Ms. --Viriditas | Talk 00:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_ghost"

Couldn't disagree with you more strongly on this one. Mrs. indicates a married woman. During the Equal Right Movement, Ms. was established to simply mean a woman, with no designation of marritial status, past or present. Miss continued to be used to designate a (usually young) that had never married. These terms can be fluid, based on the preference of the woman.

However, in Western English-speaking cultures, refering to anyone by nothing more than their surname is normally a mark if disrespect. The only exception is within military organizations (which are by nature de-humanizing) or certain Eastern cultures (where clan names is a mark of honor). Using surname only is considered to be de-humanizing. It devalues the individual. This is why the American Psychiatric Association trains therapists to require abusers to refer to victims by their name. I'm sure that you have no desire to devalue Ms. Schiavo. Since your straw polls favor using either Mrs. or Ms. by a wide margin, change your "policy". Now.--ghost 05:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because you can't tell the difference between two seperate users. I changed the reference of Ms. to Mrs. because, as you yourself said, Mrs. indicates a married woman, which Terri Schiavo was. I was for Ms., personally. Apparently style guides say last name only, though I find this dubious. That's not the point, the point is that my talk page is not a place for your garbage. And don't give me orders. Professor Ninja 06:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, apology accepted. I changed Ms. to Mrs. because that was the overall consensus. I wanted Ms. for uniformity in abbreviation (Mr., after all, having two letters) but apparently I was outvoted, and Michael & co. refer to her as Mrs. Thus, Mrs. We can't have Mrs. in one article, Ms. in another. Which is why Viriditas asked me to change it. His assumption, I believe, is based on style guides, not on any want to dehumanize (though he is correct in his assertion that in formal writing it is last name only, first name and last for disambiguation, first name for familiar references; I have never seen a formal paper, be it an essay, encyclopaedia entry, or what-have-you, where, for example, Mr. Friedman would be used over Milton Friedman or just plain Friedman.) Professor Ninja 06:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Really? Can you provide a link to this formal style? Maybe it's just a national thing, but I've always seen it the other way round here in Canada. That is, journalists use Mr./Mrs./Ms., whereas formal writing uses only the surname without the title. To recycle my previous example, a news reporter would say Mr. Friedman, whereas a critical paper (whether that criticism be bad or good, note, I'm using it without connotation here) would make use of only Friedman, as in "In Friedman's editorial in the New York Times..." Professor Ninja 07:45, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo edits

Thanks for the compliment, but if I had shown the proper restraint, I wouldn't have posted the comments in the first place. So it's not really cause for praise. I've just been under some stress lately, due to overinvolvement in political and world issues... it gets depressing. Guess you really can know too much. Anyway, thanks for the support. Coolgamer 19:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I answered you...

Thank you for a few suggestions and observations. I was unsure how much of my comments or edits would be archived.

In any case, I gave detailed response, in particular to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#RickK_deleted_quotations_to_the_law_-an_inappropriate_cencure

but also I respeonded to your colleagues as well.

Some of your claims that the unjust judge followed the law I think are incorrect, but I maybe should not have stated my view as fact, because it was hotly disputed. I think I will mull on that concept where the encyclopedia doesn't take sides...

Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA 03:22, May 9, 2005 (EST)

Thank you GHOST for welcoming me in to the community and offering some helpful links. I, by now, think I've got the hang of it, even if I don't have the time to devote to it that I'd like. Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA 19:54, May 9, 2005 (EST)

GHOST, I saw your comments on Fuel Wagon's page: "I'm glad to see you supporting mediation. I was trying to avoid misrepresenting your stance, and may've done so anyway. If I did, I apologize.--ghost 18:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)," and responded, but here is a copy here, quoting myself: --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"That's OK, ghost. It happens; I'm hard to understand sometimes. Also, the reason for my hiatis (time off) is not due to anger at my neighbors -however angry or frustrated I got -but, instead, because it was becoming a "bad investment." I am glad with my input so far, but my time is better spent on my own web pages (or cleaning my room) --both places where "reverts" are less likely. Besides, the worst thing on these pages is not near as bad as many bad things in life, so I won't sweat the small stuff. (From the edit summary is this snip: "No problem. Your apology is accepted, ghost; No harm was done, I imagine.") --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)" --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Palm Sunday Compromise.

I thought you fleshed that paragraph out nicely, but I massaged it a little more. I hope you don't mind. Thanks for your help and your support. Duckecho 00:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ghost, I got your message on my page; thx again for the continued support of V's and my edits. While there is one less "Pro-Terri’s Law" links, I am good with it, since the remaining links speak well of their point of view. Also, leaving one more Anti-Terri's-Law link should quieten the critics, who seem to slightly outnumber me. I will tentatively replace the links, but separate them into "pro-" and "anti" groupings, like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#External_links links section has it. (I overheard some other Schiavo editor(s) discussing that page, and went on over for a look-see.) I will also tentatively add in the "anti-Terri’s-Law" links that I found. Let me know what you think.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• ghost, I put a link on the two "Terri's Law" Pages, pointing reader to the other page, so they won't be deprived, and all they need to do is find one page, and they can get to both of them. Also, I made sure that the edits I did pushed the pages towards NPOV, but you may still want to review the Vanity page policy to make sure my edits are OK. I don't give you what you wanted in the talk section (reversion or deletion of certain links), but I did give you what you need, namely the information to solve the problem --and the permission & blessings for you and others to proceed unhindered. I am trusting you to be fair.

• Oh, I just noticed: At this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_paper#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox I find two useful quotes. Since they are not on Wiki's "vanity" page, and might be otherwise hard for you to locate, I will reprint them here; they are on the same subject (namely "Wiki's not a soapbox").

• Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals, or elsewhere on the web. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. Of course, you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals; but strive to make that information no less reliable and verifiable.

• Self-promotion. While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. A very few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography.

• If you want to show overt support, you could delete the links in question, and replace them back on, so the "edit history" shows it was not me, the links' owner. One thing that may be helpful: I want to mention that you can see who made recent comments by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the page, and then clicking on the "last" link by the recent entry. That way, you don't have to sift through the mountains of pages, and you can see just the recent "talk." OK, I've done the best I can to offer the readers all the information they need. I discuss the two points of disagreement in talk on these pages -and "make my case" for the readers.

• I may be very busy checking up on a friend that has been in jail a lot recently; had a funny dream about him and am worried. Plus, other personal affairs might pull me away from the board; am trusting my neighbors to not take advantage of me (and start deleting all my links willy nilly!) while I am gone. Take care, --GordonWattsDotCom 17:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo Mediation

Hi. I just returned from vacation and thought I'd take a quick look at the TS page and TS Talk page and was...speechless. I'll try and take the time to read up on all the carryings-on. In the meantime, has there been any action on the mediation front?--Mia-Cle 20:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep plowing through the incredible amount of verbiage on the TS talk page and then head over to the request for mediation. (I may take a moment to respond to something Mr. Watts said about a traffic court case he has.) I took a quick look at the government involvement and will get back to it. (I noticed a little something that was missing -- after JEB acted, Schiavo immediately filed suit against Bush for violating Florida's constitutional separation of powers, Schiavo v. Bush. Then the court decisions. There's no transition between Bush's action and the court decision. Always nice to know who is suing whom for what.)--Mia-Cle 00:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ghost, I'll leave the re-revert alone for now. I didn't know when I saw Ed's edit that he was mediating, and as a matter of fact, it was fully an hour after his edit that he put anything on the talk page. Granted, it was still before my revert, but I hadn't seen his note before I reverted. His version isn't up to the standard we've held for quite a while on this article, but I'm willing to hold off fixing it while we settle other business. Duckecho 14:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't take your reverting of it personally, particularly once I realized the purpose of Ed's presence. I saw his edit and reverted it immediately as a drive-by before I saw his Talk post. I once reverted one of your edits with regret, too, but felt (and argued) strongly at the time that it (your edit) didn't belong, and it wasn't personal, either. You must have agreed as you never complained. Even GW thinks I'm fair, so I guess I'm doing something right. Yeah, as seen by the most recent "Talk" post, the campfire approach isn't effective. By the way, thanks for your comments earlier regarding the accolades we received elsewhere. Duckecho 15:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More TS foolishness

As you saw, friend NCdave is back and has put the NPOV tag on twice. Be on the lookout for more of the same. I'm concerned about taking it out a third time. Thanks for your kind words on my page. Duckecho 01:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which word?

You said (in part): My position is, was, and will be that what the courts ruled must be considered to be Fact by Wikipedia. Everything else is heresy and speculation.

Although heresy would arguably be correct, did you mean hearsay? I'm not busting your chops, I just want to make sure which way to interpret the sentence. Also, I think you used one for the other once before.

Why cannot those people grasp the rule of law? Duckecho 03:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inviting folks to become users

Tony, you took exception with my handling of an anonymus user on the Talk:Terri Schiavo page. I'm rather confused by this. You asked that I not "pressure" people into becoming users. I didn't think I was, rather that I was offering an invitation and a link to do so. In fact, my invitation was significantly less strident that those made by others on the same Talk page. You're obviously an editor of note. How would you suggest I handle this in the future?--ghost 12:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well you implied that only logged-in users were members. Fact is we're open to anyone. I didn't mean to offend you but felt that this was a form of pressure. We do have a lot of valued editors who don't, and won't, create a user account. They're as much members as you or I. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(courtesy copy to you, Ghost. I don't intend to carry on a dialogue with someone else on your page.) Harrumph! Where were you when Neutrality and others virtually ran off one of our better editors (LRod), never to return, a couple of months ago by reverting his edits to Terri Schiavo on sight solely because he wasn't registered. In fact, Ghost probably remembers it. Duckecho 13:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do, and that's why I questioned it. Although in fairness, Tony's been on vac.--ghost 13:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More TS characters

Man, that Irish woman is becoming as big a PITA as NCdave or GW. The big difference is she occasionally correctly holds our feet to the fire on sourcing of statements, but her POV bias is really starting to show through.

And her PITA running mate with a severe POV has such a poor comprehension of English that he can't be taken seriously at all. Duckecho 15:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Oh, and don't write Gordon off yet. I've a feeling he's gathering his thoughts.--ghost 18:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's right, Ghost: I have been sidetracked and busy with cleaning my room, and when I tried to get back on my computer, I got attacked by ants from hell! Even as I type, they stream across the tabletop area beneath my keyboard and swarm by my bed! Then, last night, as I was trying to respond, my computer froze. I have a feeling, however, that Duck's concerns are over stated about Ann. I think history will prove me right on this, but everyone has a different perspective or different take on the same incident or person. (That's why 10 witnesses have 10 stories about one incident.) for example, if all of us wanted to post a link to their home page, I believe Ann would vote against mine as quickly as anyone else’s -all other things being equal, like page quality and relevance.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On another note, I am slightly surprised that no one asked my 2 cents worth on the autopsy. That's all good and well, because I wasn't interested in it: It won't prove anything one way or the other probably. Reasoning: There have been cases of people who has like half a brain and were college educated. There are also some cases in the reported medical literature with people that have normal-looking brains but who are truly PVS. I think a couple of them are regular posters on Wiki, lol. (Ha ha...)--GordonWattsDotCom 00:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TS editing

> Also, I had done similar tightening on the Terri Schiavo/sandbox, but it was ignored and is quite out of date.

I had created the sandbox concept as a vehicle for taking out the trash as it were, and unfortunately haven't been over to it more than a couple of times. Sadly, I am guilty of ignoring it myself, although not as a purposeful act. SWMBO is already complaining about the time I spend on this as I have a house I'm remodeling. I'll take a look at it for some ideas. I really appreciate your input and your steady hand. Duckecho 18:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

> And what keeps me motivated is the thought of my children (or yours) using this as a resource. They're who I write for.

What a great perspective. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I will. Duckecho 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my Sigh. If I must... post I stated "...Ghost put a section NPOV tag on the intro, which I think is unwarranted..." I want to make clear that that was not a shot at you. I know you put it there in the spirit of compromise, and I appreciate that. I made the statement primarily to justify the effort (and futility) of responding to Mr. Intransigence point by point. You are one of the very few truly level heads in the discussion. I don't want to be on your bad side. Duckecho 21:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your comment: ...my Grandfather served in Casper Wienberger's cabinet, and was the staunchest Republican I've known.

Holidays must have been hell for you. Duckecho 03:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL. No, they were great. It was like watching Jon Stewart's segment of The Daily Show for hours. LMAO, and Bills Moyers just said, "If Mark Twain was alive, he'd be working at Comedy Central." Grandma (the Senator) and Grandpa were politicians and lawyers by trade; singers and comedic actors (Gilbert & Sullivan) by choice.--ghost 03:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's Announcement

You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the Terry Schiavo article. Initial discussion is beginning at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

email

ghost, I sent you email. FuelWagon 15:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

You wrote:

This individual was disciplined in the past (See Terri Schiavo, Archives. All of them. And Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave). Most of us have made efforts to work with him. It is obvious that trying to deal with his issues is like trying to catch a phantom. He was warned here, and elsewhere prior, to posting this bit of venom.

Does this mean you are unwilling to participate in mediation with Dave? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's the mediator and the terms I object to. The presumption of some seems to be that the article should straddle both positions -- find some sort of middle ground. I don't agree. Our side is objective, largely concerned with the facts. Theirs isn't. Far from being indulged, editors such as NCDave should be resisted fiercely. He is not trying to build a decent article, but rather trying to bias what's there to his extreme POV. In any case, I've disengaged from the article. -- Grace Note

Playground insurrection

Done. I kept my promise. Duckecho (Talk) 00:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

It's difficult to keep going on Wikipedia. I have so many other things going on in my life, and the Terri Schiavo bickering wears me down. However, I want just to thank you for responding to my request, and to say that I fully accept that you did not intend the quote on your userpage as a slight. However, I think that if the person to whom the original quotation referred had happened to visit your page, he would certainly have recognized it, and it might have increased resentment. So thanks for your willingness to remove it. Ann Heneghan 30 June 2005 23:05 (UTC)

War

Ghost, you haven't logged on in quite a few days. I hope all is well with you and yours. If your personal circumstances allow it, I would like your presence on the Schiavo talk page, where matters have gotten considerably out of hand. Watts has initiated an edit war[1],[2] and reported Duck for a 3RR violation[3],[4]; he has also threatened to place the whole article into the hands of an "Arb Com" for "the various other violations creeping up." He appears to have completely lost it; I would like cooler heads to prevail on that Talk page, and would deeply appreciate the presence of yours.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 16:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect to a fellow scientist, I did not initiate it; I merely reacted to that which I thought was improper; I hope I reacted well. I only threatened to go to ArbCom as a possibility -not an eventuality; That is not something I want to do, both for #1-reasons of being a peacemaker, and also two other practical reasons: #2-Time spent -and #3-unpredictability. I've read your other comments to the effect that you seem to come off as a tuff-rumbler; I'm not offended; I hope you don't mind my clarification, and yes, I think it would be good to get other editors involved, but if Ghost is busy, I don't mind. I don't plan to do much more at this point, except let the "mediation" and "3RR" processes go on their track. Thank you for your space. You may safely delete my comment. WORLD WAR III ... just kidding.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Schiavo

Hi Ghost, thanks for your note, and I appreciate your effort to seek a resolution. First, regarding Duck's page, every editor has the right to remove personal attacks, and particularly personal attacks made against themselves. My perception is that Duckecho has struck up an inappropriate attitude to that article. He's made only 218 edits to the main namespace, most of which have been to that page. His first edit was to remove the POV tag, inserted because the dissenting diagnosis wasn't mentioned, with the edit summary: "It's [the judge's] rulings that count," [5] which runs counter to WP:NPOV, and which shows a strong POV from a new user. He has been warned by two admins about his efforts to stop other editors from editing it, unless approved by him. His response when I objected to his revert of my recent edits was to refer to me as "Madam," and to say that he's been winning prizes for his writing since before I was born. That he has now used his user page to launch personal attacks on a number of editors confirms to me that he's a problem user.

As for joining in at the mediation talk page, thank you for asking me, and I'll certainly take a look, but I wouldn't (as things stand) want to be part of mediation. My only interest initially was to respond, as an admin, to complaints made to me by Gordon and Duckecho about each other. When I looked at the page, I saw it needed a copy edit, which I did, and which was immediately reverted, confirming my view that there's something going wrong at that page. If the other editors are your friends, I hope you'll advise them to allow normal editing to resume. Just because they don't approve of a particular edit doesn't necessarily mean it's not a legitimate one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. First, I can only repeat that editors have the right to remove personal attacks from any page in Wikipedia. User pages are not exempt. As to your point about POV, having a POV is not a problem (we all have them), but it can't be allowed to affect editing to the extent that it has on this page. Regarding the number of edits a person has made, this gives an indication of their experience, though I agree absolutely that new editors should be treated as equals. But when they attempt to undermine the work of others, and even stop others from editing, there's clearly a problem.

I read a suggestion from Fox 1 on the mediation page that the Schiavo editors should adopt a zero-tolerance policy regarding personal attacks, and I strongly encourage you to sign up for that. I'd include ad hominem comments and snide remarks too. If you look through the archives, you'll see a toxic wasteland of personal abuse, which continues to this day, and yet I see you defending two of the editors responsible for it. These personal attacks are among the worst things editors can do on Wikipedia, in my view, because they poison the talk pages, which drives good editors away, and leaves the ones with the strong POV behind, because they're the only ones who care enough to dig their heels in. Badly written articles are the result. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not aware of how unpleasant the personal attacks on that talk page have been. During one 24-hour period, I was called an arrogant cuss, a jerkoff, an arrogant arse, f**%!ng $$sole, and accused of trolling, among other things. If you look through the archives, you'll see the same level of personal abuse going way back against a number of editors, some of whom have told me they're reluctant to speak up about it in case they're targeted. This isn't permitted on Wikipedia, and it has to stop. What's needed is for people to put their energies into improving content. I'd be happy to work with you on that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's certain types of behavior I want to exclude, not certain editors. The talk pages need to be kept free of the kind of abuse I'm talking about. At any moment, a new editor could arrive, take a look at the talk page, and decide not to get involved with Wikipedia after all; or one of our regular editors might be put off from contributing to the article. The page ends up almost ghettoized because of the toxic atmosphere, and that harms the article.

I took a look through the mediation archives today, and even after reading them, I can't see what the issues are. There's nothing wrong with the article that two experienced editors couldn't sort out between them in a few hours. I see the problem as stemming from a failure to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Some of the questions raised on the mediation pages show a failure to understand them, and that's why I wonder whether the newness of some of the editors might be a factor here. If those editors are controlling who else gets to edit, then it becomes a big factor.

For example, this sentence in the intro violates NPOV: "She briefly lapsed into a coma, then passed into an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS) as determined by more than a half dozen neurologists ..." I don't think any of our editors with a strong grasp of NPOV would write the sentence that way. The PVS was a disputed diagnosis. The issue split America in two. And yet our introduction is written as though there was no dispute at all. The PVS diagnosis was by far and away the majority one, and it was supported by the courts, and the sentence should be written to reflect that, but the other diagnosis can't be ignored. Another example I saw in the archives was a discussion about whether something is true if a court says it is. The answer is no. We give space to POVs depending on how prevalent they are in credible, published sources, and we don't present POV as fact just because a court has endorsed it.

Those are just two examples of issues causing unnecessary problems stemming from a failure to understand NPOV. I'd be interested to know whether you agree with any of this, although please don't feel obliged to continue with the correspondence. I won't take offense if you're fed up with it, or if you'd prefer it not to continue on your talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

That one's much better, except I wouldn't say bulimia-induced, but otherwise I agree with it. It's NPOV, gives a rounded summary, and it makes you want to read on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

apology

"FW, I owe you an apology."

The hell you do. You've shown nothing but honor and integrity. I am, however, very glad to see you back. I hope all is well. FuelWagon 20:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Mail

Ghost, sent you email. So glad to see you back. It's really unfortunate things went this way, but things can still improve.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 05:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC) Thanks. Replied.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 23:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Vote-I am tiring of mediation...

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work

• Generic Updates Message to other participants: I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The Slavery article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. "Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too. So, get on over to The Mediation Voting Center, and vote, for Gordon's sake: I have voted, and so can you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Your reply on my page: "I'm with FW. Breathe, Brother. ;-) BTW, thx for the heads up.--ghost 15:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)"

• What coincidence you replied; I commented on that at my talk page, and I'm giving you a copy above of my brief reply to Wagon; you can delete it after reading & meditating. See you in medaition & Thx for the hard work.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Stirring it

I'm requesting that you back off and stop stirring things. FuelWagon seems to be trying to sort himself out so the last thing he needs is you winding him up again, and if I want to remove my name from the mediation because I think it's silly (or for any other reason), that's my business. You seem happy to go round in endless circles, but others aren't. No one attacks you for staying in it, so don't attack others for leaving. Editors have told me they're reluctant to edit Schiavo because of the snide remarks they find about themselves on people's talk pages. All it does is add to the poisonous atmosphere. You're keen on telling others to look at what you call the "man in the mirror," so I hope you'll try taking your own advice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I rewrote the introduction to give the critics of ID a better voice. FuelWagon 21:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

ghost, if you get a chance, maybe you could check in on the talk page for Intelligent Design and put your two cents in. I'm getting bulldozed. FuelWagon 02:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"have I helped at all? You seemed to be feeling overwhelmed the other day" Yeah, you helped. Yeah, I'm feeling overwhelmed. Thanks for checking in. I'm just frustrated by the moving target requirements to keep the analogy in. It feels very "whack-a-mole"ish in nature. The analogy must do this to be in the article. Oh, it does that? Alright, but it must also satisfy this. Really? Uhm, well no one's given me a good reason to have it. etc. etc. What's really burning my butt right now is that the pyramid analogy is no different than the "watch under a stone" analogy told by pro-ID authors in various books, but for whatever reason the pro-science analogy has to meet all sorts of requirements that don't get applied to the pro-ID analogies. FuelWagon 13:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive. They just have different playpens. I tried to explain it to someone on the talk page here. FuelWagon 15:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: For a good laugh.

What he lacks in people skills, he makes [up] for as an editor.

I like his people skills. He tells people where the bear shit in the buckwheat. Although I don't shy away from a confrontation (as SWMBO is all too familiar with), I'm not good at actually calling someone a dipwad, unless I've really lost all hope of his rehabilitation. Note my effort with PatSw, although I'm running out of patience there. I had some harsh words once for NCdave, but that definitely is like wrestling with a pig (you both get dirty, but the pig likes it). The one other character there I've basically just written off as even existing. I don't respond to him, I don't answer him, I don't acknowledge him. Duckecho 04:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Signature

Yeah, I manually changed it for that one post. David Bergan 19:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's good to be back. I was off to London for a week and then digging myself out from the pile of work waiting for me when I returned. I appreciate the time and patience you put into this. You've earned everyone's respect and seem to be the only editor who isn't out to win battles. David Bergan 6 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

What kind of IT job? Where are you located? David Bergan 6 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear ghost, your kind remarks and efforts are much appreciated. I look forward to working with you too. --Ian Pitchford 19:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3rr

No, sorry, I can't use the template very well yet.--Tznkai 20:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

vandal attacks

Unfortunately it wasn't vandalism, more overenthusiastic NPOVVing from an anon. I tried to reason with him, which is something that creationists can't. Dunc|☺ 20:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We were encountering a bug.

It was happening so often that I suspected a bug, and that has now been confirmed on the wikien-l@wikipedia.org email list. They hope for a fix soon. Lots of people have been encountering this unfortuantely.--Silverback June 28, 2005 22:13 (UTC)

ID

Thanks for all your hard work on the article and keeping things civil.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 14:33 (UTC)

I glanced over your bit on the talk page about presenting ID as a philisophical idea. I'd like to work with you on this, while I, llke the majority of the eitors detest ID as a scientific theory, I personaly subscribe to the general concept philosphically (stacked deck). I think it'd be an intresting article to write on. Any ideas?--Tznkai 30 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed for a bunch of people who share similar beliefs, we disagree far to much and far too loudly >.> My first encounter with ID was simply as an philosphical conjecture that maybe life's complexity suggests a guiding hand.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent Design

I've got a reorganization proposal I'd like for you to look at.--Tznkai 15:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear option

I point out that I've offered compromise after compromise, so it should hardly come as any surprise that I'm willing to compromise. You'll find that FW is the one being intransigent and insisting on a specific text. However, per your request, provided no reverts are made of my revision of the 60% section at 20:04, 21 Jun 2005 and my placement of both sections into subsections at 20:07, 21 Jun 2005, I won't revert those edits. This compromise will be fully in line with the nuclear option: the democrats agreed that as long as they don't filibuster, the Republicans won't pull the nuclear trigger; likewise, if FW (or a sock puppet for him) doesn't revert my edits, I'll have no need to propose new compromise language. Simon Dodd 20:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Thanks for your assistance over in Nuclear option; If you have time and/or interest, I have two other articles I'm working on, the most complete being Originalism, the other being The Living Constitution, on which I'd appreciate any input you could offer.Simon Dodd 20:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Links as above. Simon Dodd 20:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear option, redux

So much for "Have faith in your brother-editor, my friend. I think it might surprise you." [6] I said at the time that FW had done nothing to earn trust or faith, and now lo and behold, I take my eye off the article for a short while, and he has edited back in the original bone of contention. I've removed it again - and I somehow don't have much faith that FW will respect and leave that edit in place. We're back to square one. Simon Dodd 8 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

Survey on Prefixed-Style

I wanted to check with you and see if your current preferences are ranked the way you mean to. Currently you say under Alternative 4, "I can't think of a better option", but you have ranked this as your Fifth, or last choice. If this is your actual intention, I do not intend to disturb it, but I thought your comment was ambiguous enough that it was worth checking. Whig 04:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

TfD

Newbie?

I dont think you really qualify for that special status now, youve been through a few. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)

You've stated that the subject of Subarticles was resolved 4yrs ago. I've been on for 3months, so yeah, ImaNewbie. Hell, I don't even know what CSS is. Much less how to fix it for TOC formating. And I'm guessing that I'm in the vast majority of Wikipedia users on that. That's why the treatment of newer users in the discussion over templates and subarticles deeply troubles me. Aren't we supposed to try to understand and respect each other? And if someone is doing it "wrong", shouldn't we gently educate them by offering alternatives? I don't enough of this going in the articles, and to see experienced Users doing the same is disheartening, to say the least.--ghost 5 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)

TOCright

You said: I personally think the current version of Terri Schiavo is one of the best examples of the proper use of {TOCright}. Hope you agree.--ghost 5 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)

I think the TOC on that artivle is a bit far down, or to put it another way the lead section is a bit long. I think ideally the TOC would start about where the "related documents" box does now. But I am sure that TOCright improves this article significantly.DES 5 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)

I agree that the Terri Schiavo intro is long. The very passionate editors of that controversial topic won't have it any other way. They, rightly, feel that the "facts" must be presented early. And considering the effort that's gone into the article, helping them do sois appropriate.--ghost 5 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)

Ghost, Tabu has requested diffs for the earlier TOCright vote on the TfD page. Might you be able to oblige? Kind regards.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 03:49 (UTC)

comments in voting

I removed the comments you made in the voting template page re subarticles because I felt they were leading to potential voters and were not entirely neutral, since you are an active voter. If you want to restore the comments thats fine but I would have to voice my disapproval underneath. Its like in the real world there are laws about not soliciting voters at voting booths within a certain radius, and there are laws about releasing the early poll results in the eastern states so it doesnt influence western state voters, same concepts. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 04:40 (UTC)

Schiavo squabbling

Hello, Ghost. I just want to say that I really did appreciate your efforts to compromise recently about the word "eventually". I was too busy to send a note to your talk page. I also appreciate your efforts to show respect. I can see that you're upset about recent events, and I'm truly sorry - but I won't be hypocritical and pretend that I'm equally upset. I think that if the behaviour on the talk page improves as a result of this - and it already has - it can only be good.

I saw your message to patsw on his talk page, but I don't think he has been on Wikipedia since, so he probably hasn't seen it. I hope he'll be back. Of course, I would hope that, wouldn't I, since he shares my POV! But sincerely, I can say that I am happy with any editor of any POV who remains polite, and tries honestly to argue on the talk page why he thinks the article should include certain facts, or why he thinks a particular wording shows bias.

I'm puzzled that a recent edit summary by another editor should have annoyed you so much, when there have been much worse edit summaries on the Terri Schiavo article and talk page. It seems that I was the only one who was upset by such edit summaries as "Everything you need to know about NCdave's cognition", or "Creating a sandbox for the kids to play in while the adults work on the article." Even a summary such as "reverting Don Quixote" is - to my mind - far more offensive than "this is silly" (which did not seem to be directed at anyone in particular). However, I applaud your loyalty to your friends, so I won't ask for a comment. If you feel it's none of my business, you're probably right. I just mention it because it's actually something I've been wondering about for quite some time. Thanks again for your recent support! Ann Heneghan 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

I think what is needed here is very close adherence to NPOV. By that, I don't simply mean "be neutral", but adherence to the particular type of neutrality we have on Wikipedia. We don't give our opinions or our interpretations of the facts, we give the facts and let the reader interpret them. Where the facts are disputed, we give both sides and make clear who said what and when. Where an area is very disputed, it's often best to stick to quotes, or even to external links. I would rather see a link to an external article critical of Dr Hammesfahr than an analysis on Wikipedia. And I certainly don't think we should be throwing around words like "charlatan" - that is always an opinion, unless it is part of a direct quote (then it's still an opinion, just the source's rather than ours). Sorry if that is all rather too general, I don't know the subject and until (if) Dr Hammesfahr gets back in touch with me I don't know what else needs to be changed in our current article -- sannse (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)