User talk:Fox1/schiavoarchive

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

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 04:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schiavo

Thanks for your comment, Fox. That's my perception of FuelWagon based on looking at his contribs. It's hard to be sure because he's concentrated his edits on just three articles. Whatever the POV is, the vociferous nature of the editing is inappropriate, and it's the POV pushing that's the problem, not the particular POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

still alive

Fox! holy crap, you're still alive! Duckecho and Neuroscientist both took off in disgust. Mia-cle hasn't returned. professer ninja is gone. I thought you were MIA too. Glad to see a familiar name. FuelWagon 18:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Fox. I read your version at Fox1/terri (at least up to your double-line marker). I personally would support your version of the intro. But certain parties kept changing the article to say "this was about euthanasia", and I'd end up using up my 3 "revert bullets" in a day and then run out of ammo. There's nothing I could do about it without getting blocked. The only thing I could do was put in the other points of view around whether this was euthanasia or not. I look at it like the whole "Carla Iyer" affidavit thing. All the schindler-pushers kept quoting Iyer's affidavit saying Michael kept asking her "when't that bitch gonna die", and I kept pushing to get it removed as nonsense. They'd push it back in again. The only solution I could see was to put in mention of her affidavit, but then put in the court's comments on it that it was basically a moron with a conspiracy theory and tossed it, and mention all the logical flaws in her claims. Yeah, it sucks that every accusation has to be put in the article no matter how nonsensical it is, but at least if the accusation is in there, it makes the schindler pushers happy, and if the countering views are there to show it's complete bullshit, then that should make the reality-based folks happy. The only problem is the article length is huge. Well, we are talking about 15 years of medical and legal battles. dozens and dozens of cases and motions and decisions, medical exams, arm chair diagnosis, video diagnosis, enough affidavits to choke a horse, three guardian ad litem reports, 4 trips to the supreme court that were turned away, state laws, governor intervention, congressional laws, and a subpeona for terri to testify before congress as an attempt to invoke "witness protection" on her. Just in the events directly relating to Terri, her parents, and Michael, there's no way I can see to make this much smaller. The idea of breaking it up into sub-articles was good. the political stuff, public opinion stuff, all that makes for good sub-articles. But the way I see it, if we leave out something like Iyer's "Bitch gonna die" comment, someone will eventually push to put it in. This way, we have it in, we have all the countering responses, and maybe, just fucking maybe, I could spend my wikipedia time on another article, rather than always fighting the bullshit over here. (can you tell I'm just a bit burned out, just a bit cynical, and just a bit pissed off about this whole article?)

The only way I see we could ever shorten this article without having a hoard of winged fucking monkeys suddenly attacking us would be to find some good way to split off pieces into more sub articles and have an "overview" for those pieces in the main article. But I'm too burned out to try it now. It would take some time to write the overview pieces, and then there'd be arguments as to what got left out and what is neutral.

As for a technical comment on your version, I do think the article is better after I took the random chunks of information in the oddball sections (example, the section titled "Michael Schiavo" was a holding pen for all sorts of bits of information about Michael) and put them into chronological order. But I think chronologically. I was one of teh editors who did a lot of work on the original terri schiavo timeline article. So I know I'm biased that way, and am willing to hear counter arguments.

If you look at the chronology, there are a couple of major "eras" that could be condensed into an overview piece somehow, and then have all the details in a subpage.

initial crisis: Terri collapsed. went into a coma, entered PVS
first three years: Michael is guardian. Schindlers and he get along. Michael tries implant. lawsuit.
first dispute: Michael wins lawsuit. Terri diagnosed PVS. Michael stops therapy. Schindlers challenge his guardianship. truce is reached by no one doing anything.
Michael petitions to discontinue life support: Schindlers challenge. Guardian ad litem says terri is PVS, but says Michael has a conflict of interest, so he alone cannot be used to determine terri's end of life wishes.
end of life wishes case: testimony heard. Court rules that Terri really would not want to be kept alive on a machine with no hope of recovery.
Schindlers change tactics and challenge the PVS diagnosis itself. 5 doctors give opinion in court. Court rules Terri PVS.
Terri's law. Governor Bush intervenes at the state level, forces feeding tube reinserted in Terri. Guardian ad litem Wolfson is appointed to report. He reports to Bush: She is PVS, she said she wouldn't want to be kept on a machine, this is all within the rule of law.
Schindlers use every avenue to challenge decision. Accuse Michael of abuse, challenge guardianship, bone scan report, "bitch gonna die" accusations. Continue to challenge diagnosis, affidavits from speech therapists, doctors, most based on 4.5 minutes of video. Challenge feeding "by natural means". Media campaign. Appeal to president bush and congress. several cases brought to supreme court but denied.
terri dies. Autopsy consistent with PVS.

Right there, you're looking at 9 distinct stages in this story. It's no wonder this thing is so long. At the moment, I just don't have the energy to do anything significant to the article. I'm burned out and I'm feeling stuck because I don't know how to fix it. I was hoping the peer review might bring in some suggestions for improvement, and maybe get some kudos for a decent job. Plus it would give me some time to take a breather. Gordon's and Patsw's insistence on putting "euthanasia" in the intro sort of killed of my enthusiasm for thinking maybe we were close to a final version. Now, I'm just trying to contain the damage.

Wow, this was a long post. I'm partly rambling in a way that reflects how I feel about the whole thing: directionless, no enthusiasm, and no real end in sight. Anyway, since I've got no better place to stop, might as well be here. FuelWagon 16:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Gordon's and Patsw's insistence on putting "euthanasia" in the intro sort of killed of my enthusiasm for thinking maybe we were close to a final version." Fox1, I left a note on the talk page -in response to similar concerns Wagon brought: Namely that I thought the current version at the time was OK to leave alone, and only had minor concerns about the intro length. However, if it makes anyone feel any better, I think this is as good as you can get for a "final version," and I personally think the article should be frozen solid and protected with a deep freeze page lock, not counting any new developments of stupid typos, or something. That would offer stability in my opinion. Maybe the article can be featured as a featured article candidate or whatever that Neutrality had mentioned on one peer review a long time ago. That's my take on it, but I'm posting here in case you didn't see my post in talk.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting comment?

I'm sorry, Fox1, if I deleted anything, it wasn't on purpose. Let me take a look at the history. Do you know what comment it was? I'm sorry if I did anything unintentionally! Stanselmdoc 15:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, I found it I think. I'm sorry, I don't know what happened. But I replaced it, and I hope it's in the right place. If it's not, I'm sorry again! Stanselmdoc

reply and apologies

In case you didn't see it on the Schiavo "talk" page, here it is (below) again -with indenting adjusted to make it fit easier.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote against it, do you, Fox ?? Are you saying the Chinese AND the Hispanic wikis AND myself AND Pastw AND Ann AND Stanselmdoc AND Google.com ALL wrong? Yeah, right! Delusions and dream on...are ALL stupid? Yeah, they/we are all stupid, and you're right. If you believe that, then guess who 'really has the delusions of grandeur.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Gordon, I was addressing your individual method of discourse on this page, don't try and make this an 'us vs. them' thing, because it has nothing to do with Pat, Ann, etc. As far as you being 'wrong,' I didn't say you were wrong, I said I disagree... since this isn't a factual issue, it's an issue of style, formatting and editorial priorities.

Additionally, I never called anyone 'stupid' or used any even vaguely equivalent term and I would appreciate if you turned the level of bombast down significantly.

Fox1 13:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Gordon, I was addressing your individual method of discourse on this page...As far as you being 'wrong,' I didn't say you were wrong, I said I disagree... since this isn't a factual issue, it's an issue of style..." I am sorry that I misunderstood that on which you were voting. "Additionally, I never called anyone 'stupid' or used any even vaguely equivalent term..." Well, I didn't exactly say you did, but I am sorry if I incorrectly implied this; MY method to think this was the thought that "actions" (e.g., your "vote" against whatever) speaks louder than your words. "...and I would appreciate if you turned the level of bombast down significantly." OK, I'm sorry if I shouted or jumped up and down, but I simply was happy (overjoyed actually) that both the Chinese and the Hispanic wikimasters (and numerous fellow editors, current and past) had agreed with me on a point (including mention of "euthanasia" debate") on which I thought I was (stylistically) right. However, other than the slight "length" problem, I think this matter has become moot. I give my "STAMP of APROVAL" on the current version of the page, having noted that most participants on various sides of the issue (myself included) are happy with it.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new intro

Hey Fox, it isn't exactly your version, but the Terri Schiavo article has a new intro that is pretty damn short. I think it might actually meet policy guidelines even. FuelWagon 14:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thx, but we need your help...

heard whispers & echoes of your positive feedback in re my (maybe selfish?) efforts.

Thx, but we are in almost a tie deadheat, and the Fac for Terri may bite the dust without your help.

See e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

--GordonWattsDotCom 13:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shiavo, again

Consider the fox signal flare lit. 23 should clarify (Gordon is inserting weasel words on court actions)

Textbook "dictionary" definitions. See talk page.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

24 typically only legally (more weasel words) 25 STAY OF EXECUTION (an interesting choice of link name)

Those were the judge's own words, not mine. See talk.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

26 Vanity links (he's pushing his websites again)

No, I allowed the edit removal of my links --this time, --as there were other reporters who covered this issue -albeit not as well. See Schiavo's talk page for details, El Ptimo Fox0.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FuelWagon 04:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What's with "23" "23" "25" and "26?" -- huh? to what do they refer?--GordonWattsDotCom 05:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need...

...to be embarassed. It was actually sort of weird it wouldn't leave. You have the history--there's some discussion on the main Terri Schiavo page of maybe trying a new version again so it can be used. --Marskell 18:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vote

Fox, could you take a look at this and weigh in on this. If we get some sort of consensus, then we can get this page unlocked (done at Gordon's request because he wasn't getting to keep his version in the article) and fix the article. FuelWagon 13:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who locked the Terri Schiavo page has put in an article RFC. I've tried to write down a brief description of the content issues here. FuelWagon 13:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

schiavo, again

Fox, I'm getting really sick of this, but the Terri Schiavo article has just undergone major churning. Basically, Gordon submitted the article for "Featured Article" status, and pretty much everyone objected as being too long. In an effort to do anything to satisfy these complaints, Gordon deleted the entire legal history from the article and put it in a subarticle. The terri schiavo article now has NOTHING that explains the various court cases and the various points of view. Some new editors have come along and have decided to enforce an edit-limit truce because Gordon has had a couple of bouts of edit-itis where he does like two or three dozen edits to the article and massive posts on the talk page. (except that Gordon would only agree to a two-edit per day limit if it applied to everyone, now I'm limited to 2 edits a day as well. Nice, eh?) At least one of the new editors supports the idea of a separate court-case article for Schiavo. In the meantime, the article now has nothing to fill the hole. He says to write a "summary" to replace it, but he doesn't seem to get how contentious teh topic is or how difficult it will be to write a summary that is short, covers the topics, hits all teh points of view, and will make everyone happy. But now the possibility of featured article status has overrun reason and I'm getting sick of it. Since you're familiar with the article and all teh pain involved in getting somethign that makes everyone happy, maybe you could chime in and provide the voice fo experience around this. I'm too disgusted right now to be of much use. Plus I used up my two edits today already. FuelWagon 19:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]