User talk:Patsw

patsw 01:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like your re-introduction of the Zogby poll, and I think you worded it fairly. But what's my opinion. There seems to be a lot of hostility here to that poll.

My position is that it is best to put the facts out there and let individual readers decide. I added the link to the raw poll report, and I don't think it is reasonable for anyone to quarrel with that.

I believe that the questions are indeed pertinent, and there is value in contrasting them with the questions of the ABC and CBS polls. Also, and very important, the Zogby poll was taken very late when there was increased public awareness. For example, the ABC poll begins by asking if respondents were paying close attention, and about half of them were not. Those people would not be expected to have informed opinions. By the time of the Zogby poll, attention was very high and there had been more time for people to hear about the controversial issues.

Tropix 06:10, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Hi! I found your user pic just now and, as part of the wikipedia image tagging project, I'm marking it as yours and listing that you release it into the public domain for copyright purposes. If this is at all inaccurate, please feel free to correct it. --InShaneee 03:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is my image and it is public domain. patsw 17:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Pat. Welcome aboard. Jdavidb 17:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your email. I was just able to download the file for the first time through Mozilla and I'm reading it at this moment. I don't know what the error was, but I think it had something to do with using an external download accelerator instead of just the browser. --Viriditas | Talk 03:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the dispute and dubious tags from the Cardinal Spellman article because I think your complaint had been taken care of. Please have a look at the article and comment on the Talk: page if you disagree. Remes 05:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's in the article now is fine. I made that edit when I had less experience than I have now. patsw 13:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you unfortunately continue to ignore the fact that at trial Michael's testimony was among the least considered; not as to credibility but as to the potential conflict of interest (shared by the Schindlers) raised by GAL Pearse. Most importantly, Michael's testimony was not remotely the only testimony—from the order, "The court took testimony from eighteen witnesses." I'm not implying that they all testified the same way. It merely proves that Greer didn't make his decision solely on Michael's say so. Moreover, that people (even millions of them) have doubts is even more irrelevant than my approval, and is most certainly irrational because they (nor I) were not at trial (and in most cases they haven't even read the orders) and did not have the advantage that Greer did, as the order states, "[t]he court has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor, hear inflections, note pregnant pauses, and in all manners assess credibility above and beyond the spoken or typed word." Duckecho 18:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for the determination made by Greer was "clear and convincing".

I pulled this from a Newsday account from April 15, 2003

At that trial, Michael testified he and his wife talked about life support when Terri's grandmother was ill. "She said, 'If I ever have to be a burden to anybody, I don't want to live like that,'" he said.

He also testified the two watched a television documentary about people on life support. "She made the comment to me that she would never want to be like that," he said at the trial. Michael said he told Terri he felt the same way and has since written into his will instructions not to be kept on life support.

Michael's older brother, Scott Schiavo, and Michael's sister-in-law, Joan Schiavo, who is married to a different brother, also testified Terri made similar comments to them. Scott said he talked with Terri at a luncheon after a funeral for Scott's grandmother, who had spent weeks unconscious on a ventilator.

"Terri made mention at that conversation," Scott said, "that 'If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine.' Pretty much everybody at that table that was in the discussion had made the same comment."

The only testimony supporting Michael Schiavo's recall of Terri's wishes were Joan Schiavo and Scott Schiavo. Michael's recall (and the others' recall) of Terri's wishes came many years after her collapse -- all with an interest in seeing Michael prevail in the legal conflict with the Schindlers.

These wishes, if true, do not reflect "informed consent" and any contemplation of a condition not at the end of life -- not shortening natural life by 10, 20, or 30 years.

Unlike a rational state like New York where the decision to withdraw medical treatment must be dated, signed and witnessed, Florida permits a judge to determine this by "clear and convincing" evidence.

Then there is Diane Meyer's testimony which Greer found to not be credible -- first on Greer's error that Meyer got the year wrong when it turned out that Greer got the date wrong -- then when the error was pointed out to Greer, he declared that he was going to find Meyer's testimony not credible anyway. What would be Meyer's interest in lying?

Richard Pearse, one of Terri's guardians ad litem did not find the three Schiavo's 1998 recall of Terri's wishes from ten years prior to be "clear and convincing" especially given the conflict of interest in Michael inheriting Terri's part of the malpractice award.

If Terri had made the wishes that Michael recalled in 1998 in writing or to people without a financial interest in the outcome, I could accept it. Of course Greer doesn't answer to me, but to me and millions who have read the testimony, orders, and news accounts, Greer's determination of "clear and convincing" was wrong -- it was not "clear" and not "convincing" that Terri would choose to end her life by dying of thirst, 10, 20, 30 years ahead of its natural end. In fact, many people with living wills, and aware at the end, choose not to implement the death option. patsw 23:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cardiac arrest ≠ myocardial infarct
No need to thank me. Your enlightenment will be thanks enough. Duckecho 15:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I always knew the difference. The mystery is your concern for my knowlege of this. patsw 16:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because you keep trying to link the ME's finding of no evidence of myocardial infarct with the readily documented cardiac arrest that led to encephalytic anoxia in the initial medical crisis. The two (myocardial infarct and cardiac arrest) are not related. Please acknowledge that you understand there is no link and that you will refrain from trying to make one (which you have at least twice) and I won't bring it up again. Duckecho 16:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Pat. I'm alive and well, but have been extremely busy. I have a backlog of unanswered messages to deal with, too, but I see from the Schiavo talk page that I need to get back quickly. Expect a few contributions from me in the next few hours. Ann Heneghan 16:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Update: I've just realized from your user page that you call yourself "Patrick". I assumed that it was "Pat" because of the "patsw" username. Ann Heneghan 17:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

It's Patrick in written form to provide gender disambiguation, otherwise it's Pat. patsw 18:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation#It's time to deal with the bully. I ask for your support.--ghost 20:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Patsw. Any additional thoughts on the page for Catholic? Really like to get that one worked out. Thanks & God bless... KHM03 12:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pat (may I call you Pat?). Would you mind chatting with me thru my Talk page, or email? You have some concerns that I noticed on the Talk pages of others, but...it seemed rude to jump into a "private" conversation. Anyway, I'm encouraging the other Terri Schiavo editors to "read for the enemy". I certainly don't view you as an enemy, but I do want to be able to better view the subject on your terms. Can you please help me?--ghost 5 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 04:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on the poll about insults. In return, I'll tell you about a somewhat similar matter. In the article about Ted Kennedy, some people want to insert material about the rape allegation against Kennedy's nephew. Kennedy himself wasn't charged with anything. His nephew was acquitted. I pointed out that the same reasoning would call for larding the George W. Bush article with material about his brother's financial malfeasance (and ban from working in the banking industry), his wife's having killed a teenager by running a stop sign, and his daughters being busted (and pleading no contest) for underage drinking. Some people are so keen to throw mud at Kennedy that they'll happily accept these inserts to the Bush article. I think all this crap should stay out. Including notable insults about the subject of an article is one thing, but this crowd wants to clutter a prominent person's article with negative stuff about the subject's relatives. It seems to me to involve many of the same evils that concerned you about the insults, in terms of maintaining Wikipedia's overall tone. If you want to chime in, it's at Talk:Ted Kennedy#Quickpoll (with a few dozen kilobytes of argument preceding it, if you're feeling really masochistic). JamesMLane 06:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, I put you down for "1/2" a vote, as I recall, in the Schiavo talk page, regarding my claim of a slim concensus regarding mentioning euthanasia. Please come on over and formally weight in. Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 18:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I like the fact that you're interested in removing anti-Catholic POV (I'm Catholic myself), I also enjoy the fact that you seem to try to remain as unbiased as possible WHILE removing it. Thanks for your work in trying to keep things as neutral as possible! Stanselmdoc 21:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pat. Thanks for your message. Will have a look at Village Pump. I'm a bit busy at the moment, as my brother is home from England with his family. Glad to see you're still appearing on the Schiavo talk page. Hope all is well with you. Regards. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, patsw. I'll keep that in mind. Clearly I get carried away sometimes, but I try to make sure that I ask if I can delete it beforehand. Thanks though. Stanselmdoc 21:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you had not previously encountered Famekeeper. He is, in my opinion, a very problematical editor, but that is only my opinion. He appears to be trying to present a theory to the effect that Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, and other Catholic leaders are guilty of complicity in the Holocaust for supporting the rise of Adolf Hitler. My own view is that some of those leaders made moral errors that are more obvious in hindsight than were obvious to them at the time in failing to recognize that Nazism was as dangerous as Communism, but at the same time they must be given the benefit of the doubt as to what they knew at the time. However, I will not try to present my analysis (which is that the situation was tragic and all choices were imperfect) at length here.

In any case, Famekeeper has a theory that I have seen nowhere else that Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, etc., "excommunicated themselves against their own souls", based on his interpretation of canon law, and that a canon law proceeding should be initiated against them now. After filling pages and pages of talk page space with that argument, that is what I told him to drop.

Famekeeper does not know how to summarize, and always goes on at length.

If you get sufficiently annoyed, you might want to visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. Then again, you might not.

I see that Famekeeper has not seen your user page. When he does, he will probably accuse you of being an agent of the Vatican trying to censor Wikipedia (as he has one other editor). Robert McClenon 11:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has done that. I'm that one editor and I hope I do not draw his attention to this page.

I wanted to thank you for your message on my talk page. Yes, the Theology of B16 is a bit uneven. I was against its creation (this was done to slim down the main B16 article) and my attempt to reform it, as the first post on the talk page says, came to nothing, due to time constraints and pre-occupation with some other issue.

I also agree with what you posted on P12 regarding the use of talk pages. That in fact was my first and main conflict with FK. He's mostly harmless on the article pages but he uses the Talk pages for his "message.

Str1977 20:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick technical note, Pat: please post all your messages in the bottom section designated for this. It's easier for me to find the new message and I can do the pidgeon holing myself. Thanks for your cooperation. Str1977 22:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Patsw, the problem with FK is a mixture of both things: his belief in a vast catholic conspiracy and his editing inabilities. He himself said somewhere that he wrote as he thinks, which explains his style quite well. I guess he also jumps to conclusions when listening to stuff and then is "emotionally bound to his opinion" (quote from Dilbert's boss). This is my explanation for the whole conspiracy thing and also for his latest post on Jimbo's page (I mean: the CDU party is "the christian right"? Please!) Also, his complaint about a Ratzinger approach to abortion makes it obvious that he hasn't though the through the issues he posts about or rather that he hasn't managed to integrate all his opinions into a consistent stance. And we already knew his complete unability to see that Communism at one time was a threat.

But I agree with what you posted. Str1977 09:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pat. Are you offended by this article and its talk page? This edit drew my attention to it. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's offensive and it's indicative of the "one standard for Catholics and another standard for everyone else" that applies in the Wikipedia. patsw 23:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add in "venerable" to the article. A policy decision was taken to no longer use styles in opening paragraphs but instead use style infoboxes. I simply transferred the style that was already there into the infobox. (Similarly, when policy was to keep styles and a band of users deleted them I reverted the deletions. I never added in the claim, simply stopped it being removed contrary to then policy.) I had nothing to do with adding the claim that he is a venerable in, simply a technical role vis-a-vis its location on the page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, I know that you have concerns about some of the "right-to-die" language on the Terri Schiavo page, but the good work of many editors (some of them quite strange -but still doing "teamwork") --the hard work of many editors' should be acknowledged and rewarded.

I would like you to come on over to the Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo page and weigh in on the issue. While actual vote count may (or may not?) be important in getting Terri Schiavo as a Featured Article Candidate (Fac), your voice would be helpful -and I hope you support the candacy.

Thx!--GordonWattsDotCom 09:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Str1977 11:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thx 4 your feedback on the Schiavo Featured Article candidate page.

Since you asked for my help, please see this here link, reprinted in the boc below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=22462844&oldid=22462041

My reasons for including that fact there is a debate in the introduction and excluding a specific mention of Cornwell's POV are given in the Talk:Pope Pius XII#Cornwell in the introduction so I am not going to repeat what I wrote there again. There's plenty of opportunity to go into the both sides of the debate in detail in the body of the article. patsw 22:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Pat, the introduction looks ok, in its current state, without mention of Cornwell. This sentence, "His leadership of the Church during the period of World War II is the subject of continued discussion, especially in light of his tenure as Papal Nuncio to Germany and later as Vatican Secretary of State," seems to indicate other points of view on the subject and leaves details for later. That's just my take, but the "who" of the other views is not so important as is the "what," and that is mentioned, so I think it's OK. That's just my view.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Responding to RFC: I'm inclined to agree with excluding this from the introduction. At most I would say that controversy exists, and go into it further down in the article. Anything other than a passing mention unbalances the introduction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--GordonWattsDotCom 10:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I dropped in to make sure you had no objections to the edits I suggested, since I saw no reply in that talk page. But noticing your statement here about Catholicism, I want to add that I hope you do not see that incident as a pro- and anti-Catholic issue. I certainly do not. 195.177.224.59 17:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign in. Haiduc 17:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I buy into the Wikipedia principle of first assuming good faith. The Museum incident is worth including because it is something that Rudy could have ignored entirely and chose not to. It gives an insight into something of a contradiction about him: on one hand he is pro-choice and admitted to infidelity but on the other hand, he picked this hill in on Empire Blvd. in Brooklyn to fight this battle. With the tweaks I thought it has become a good section which is why I restored it after it was blanked. patsw 17:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Request for Comment process failed to resolve this and more time is not going to help. What do people think of doing Request for Mediation? patsw 14:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, that you're right. But maybe we should give him one more chance to resconsider.Str1977 18:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, lets get rid of all this bulimea speculation so we can report what really happened: Michael abused Terri and strangled her the night of her collapse. Fuel Wagon 18:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be baited into a sarcastic reply to this. patsw 18:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hostility? no, that was not my intent. FuelWagon 19:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my page, you wrote, and I replied:"So, as I see the article and talk page now after some time elapsed, I see stuff that was negotiated in good faith during March through June was simply added back or removed during its multiple reorganizations. This "eating disorder" thing really bothers me: The autopsy did not find the characteristic scarring of the esophagus and stomach of bulimia. Yet Terri had an eating disorder so extreme that it killed her according to this speculation. Since FuelWagon has no response based on facts and reason, he baited me with the speculation that Terri was the victim of an assault by Michael. According to FW, it wasn't his intent to bait me, he's just got a unique way of showing the civility he demands from other editors. The "End of life" nonsense persists in the article as well because the court documents mistakenly referred to it. patsw 23:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Don't mind Wagon's baiting -it's just his way of "saying hello," and expressing a point: He's "harmless," as far as that goes; nonetheless, due to the nature of "wiki," there is an inherent lack of stability, so past agreements and concensus are easily tossed, as if to imply it's OK to break past concensus, like one breaks the law.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this sort of baiting is done in good faith. I think it is a pretext to drag down the level of discourse, suck you in, so that the finger can be wagged that you've engaged in ad hominems or a flame war. This gambit goes all the way back to BBS's at 1200 bps in the 1970's. I recognize these and nip them in the bud. patsw 23:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"BBS's at 1200 bps in the 1970's." Huh? What's that?--GordonWattsDotCom 00:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Internet, there were dial-up lines operating at approximately 120 characters per second -- about 30 seconds to fill a 24 x 80 character screen -- to a Bulletin Board System like CompuServe or if one were fortunate to dialup TIP of the ARPANET patsw 03:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. They had nuts back then, didn't they?--GordonWattsDotCom 05:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the files of my talk page is this copy and paste:

Gordon, has a question of weight that's arisen in the Terri Schiavo article ever been resolved contrary to Michael Schiavo's POV by Fuel Wagon? The first week or so editing there I noticed the utter predictability of the so-called neutrality advocates of the editing cabal. One didn't need to know much beyond whether it helped or hurt Michael's position in public opinion to know how they would decide any editing dispute. patsw 22:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Gordon, has a question of weight that's arisen in the Terri Schiavo article ever been resolved contrary to Michael Schiavo's POV by Fuel Wagon?" Don't know, but Wagon sometimes bends and compromises & does what is right. Come and vote on our dispute.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--GordonWattsDotCom 02:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your help is needed at:

Talk:Terri_Schiavo and also at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

both are time-sensitive issues; could you come and vote. Come and vote, please...?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't quite understand what you were saying to me on my talk page. I've been reverting that stupid Savage "santorum" crap regularly, just on general principle, without reference to any particular policy; making up dirty words out of other people's names hardly warrants mention in an encyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Rudy G. article) That's my term, I was trying to be accurate. Feel free to rephrase. Haiduc 01:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, Please support my request for adminship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concurr I do. Str1977 23:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your 2¢ sought: The Terri Schiavo Featured Article nomination has made much progress and has received much positive feedback, including some from Mark (AKA →Raul654), the FA-editor: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo. As one of the esteemed editors in that vein, I'd like you to review the FA-nom and throw in your 2¢-worth. Thx.--GordonWatts 15:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, I'm not sure what else I can say beyond that I'm sorry you were offended. It was never my intent and I hope that you'll accept my regrets for inartful language. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a gesture of good faith, I wanted to point you to a new category that you might be interested in. I know conservative editors often feel marginalized here, which is unfortunate; you should know that there are some efforts being made to combat that. You might have a visit with User:Paul Klenk, as well as User:Gator1 and/or User:Jdavidb, the latter two having just started [[Category:Conservative Wikipedians]]. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to seem uncivil. I was a bit upset about what I saw as you 'demanding I be specific now,' but perhaps I misread it. I am new to wikipedia, new to the rules, but your link to civility has been very instructive, and I just wanted to let you know that in no way did I mean to offend you. I still disagree with your use of facts, but I will promise to make a better effort to maintain a friendly discussion. (Bjorn Tipling 04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I replied with my take on the events you mentioned up on that page. Thanks for letting me know, pat. Professor Ninja 07:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pat, you posted on my talk page:

The Catholic Church teaches that in this sacrament the bread is no longer bread in substance, but retains the appearance of bread. It is not symbolically the Body of Christ, but is in reality the Body of Christ.

I agree completely. Both that the Church teaches this and that it is true. Maybe you have confused me with Proto, who brough up "bread" and "symbol" again. If you indeed meant me: I don't have a problem with appearance, but I think form is in line with Catholic teaching as well, as in "sub utraque forma". Regards, Str1977 11:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pat, Famekeeper's gone a while and I don't miss him. You were involved with him and have wondered about his language. Well, I asked a friend of mine, who's into computers and stuff, about his IP and he said, that FK posted from Dublin, Ireland. He also thought that his language as well as his insistence on being a native speaker of English remings of Indians (meaning from the subcontinent) he was talking about. This is also confirmed by some sections from FK's talk page: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]

I thought I might post this, in case you're interested. Str1977 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did attempt to verify it, and found many blogs with much the same material, and one news source. While this does not meet my standards of corroboration, it may meet others'. It matters more to me and was the reason for my decision to roll back - not delete, as you say; one deletes a page or an image, which does require discussion and is more work to reverse - to reverse a rollback like this is relatively simple, especially if done immediately - the reason was that this edit

1. was not minor
2. was made with no citations at all.

If you on the other hand, wish to provide them and make properly cited, NPOV edits, I am not stopping you or in any position, in fact, to do so. Schissel : bowl listen 05:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wikified the heading patsw 15:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote the op-ed piece that you quoted for the Rush Limbaugh article? Was it Rush? Gregmg 19:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pat, I was asked by Ann to do an overhaul of the article mentioned. I have done this and ask now you to take a look at it, as you were involved in discussing wording issues regarding the Eucharist. If you think my wording objectionable in any way, please tell me. Cheers, Str1977 22:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, the discussion was getting off-topic. Your stated interests cause me to ask whether you can address the question being dispute. What happens if the cardinals elect a married layman to the papacy? Michael Hardy 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your issues (I have had similar fights on other topics), and I hope that you see that I am not trying to vilify Pius XII, but merely explain what the controversy and complexities around his Papacy are about. Is there a way we can bring in some of the criticism without throwing the article to the dogs? My suggestions are to drop the "Jewish quotes" section, remove or qualify the Zolli story, add a paragraph or two describing the charges of Carroll and Willis and the others in some detail (with rebuttal from Dahlin, if you want), and remove the odd Syndney Zion quote, perhaps replacing it from the numbers from the sympathetic review of Pius XII and the Second World War: According to the Archives of the Vatican by Pierre Blet and Lawrence J. Johnson in The Journal of ReligionVol. 81, No. 1 (Jan., 2001(: "Vatican diplomatic initiatives mitigated the sufferings of tens of thousands of Jews, and delayed the sad fates of thousands more." --Goodoldpolonius2 03:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you have described yourself as a Catholic, I thought I would alert you as a co-religionist to your opportunity to delete the particularly offensive article, Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia.--Thomas Aquinas 21:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patsw. I notice you are quite active in promoting the Faith on this Wiki. I've been working on the new project, Wikikto (en.wikikto.org), a Catholic Wiki. If you'd be interested in lending a hand there, we'd be deeply grateful for your expertise and zeal. Thanks and God bless, Dpr 10:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Foetal Pain" (Fetal Pain) has been deleted from the Abortion article. Could you help restore it? If you would like to see what was deleted, go to my talk page, scroll to "Fetal Pain," and click the provided link.--Thomas Aquinas 22:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I shouldn't have bothered to bait them. I call a spade a spade, plain and simple. There is nothing unencyclopedic about calling the hijackers terrorists as that description is indeed the best fit for their actions. I'm not going to get into any comparative arguments either such as bombing of Dresden is no better or worse than 9/11. As I quoted from the UN website, the term terrorism is related to a peacetime war crime, and a war crime also has a better, more agreed upon definition. If the U.S. is also guilty of atrocities, then they fall under the definition of war crime, not terrorism. I think we're on the same page, and a few others are also, albeit less actively. If it keeps up, I may draw up an RfC on the issue, but that tends to become a long arduous affair as you know. Nice meeting you.--MONGO 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bandying about inaccurate figures of the 9/11 death toll? It is way above the offical toll - on this wikipedia article the death toll reads "The official count records 2,986 deaths" You have quote the right-wing Daily Telegraph with a figure of 4,537 people -max rspct 17:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; If I wanted to get philosophical about it, I would say we should work with the wiki to say something, rather than fight the wiki to keep certain things from being said. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually more interested in restoring the titles, and the criteria they imply, than in the examples themselves. Different examples might be more useful. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied above before I read the latest edits at words to avoid. It's taken a direction I do not think is correct, turning the article into an extended admonition to not say terrorist. At this point, the article is way too much about terrorism and neutrality, to the point that it's turning into another article altogether. As it stands now we might do better to remove the examples. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sophocles had BC/AD dates until 2 days ago when it was changed. After being banned I promised - I'm not sure who exactly, but I did and don't want to break it - that I wouldn't revert unless theres been some discussion on the matter. So if you would like you can add your opinion. Thank you, Chooserr

I just wanted to say I think you did a fine job with the latest version of the "Economic Aftermath" section. I said as much on the talk page, until someone mysteriously deleted my comments. Cheers. ~Sylvain 12/11/05

Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You listed yourself as Roman Catholic so I thought I might bring this unencyclopedic total POV pushing article to your attention. It is currently up for deletion here. Chooserr 04:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article was, to the best of my knowledge, created by Famekeeper, and was meant to present Cornwell's case against Pius XII. I thought that Cornwell's case was entitled to be presented as POV. Famekeeper was and is unable to distinguish between POV and NPOV. He thinks that once a responsible scholar agrees with Famekeeper, Famekeeper can state the scholar's views as fact rather than as POV. I had been planning to revise the article to provide a more accurate summary of what Cornwell actually said. I was originally trying to work WITH Famekeeper to help him present a critical view of Pius XII objectively. I eventually discovered that one cannot work with Famekeeper. I think that the article should exist, but only about the book. I no longer feel like trying to write the article. Robert McClenon 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your post about this article while writing to a talk page. Looking over the Pius XII article I agree that Hitler's Pope amounts to a fork. The scholarship is far better on the Pius XII page. I'd support a move to redirect and merge. Although I'll leave it to an active editor to propose the change, I'm going to leave a comment to this effect on the Hitler's Pope talk page. Durova 01:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I supported the keeping of the article because I thought it was about a book. It could have been. It is very true that the creator of the article intended it as a POV fork. He may have done that because, on Pius XII, which had more people watching it, his POV was deleted.

On the one hand, the scholarly case against Pius XII and against Ludwig Kaas and against the Zentrum is not being presented well. On the other hand, it is difficult to present a case if you know all the answers in advance. Robert McClenon 01:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my RfA. I hope you and yours have a merry Christmas. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patsw, I nominated Tom if you check his usertalk if you wanted an opportunity to chime in.--MONGO 21:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. The link to the voting page is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia --Shanedidona 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, your comments are well understood by me. I appreciate your imput...happy editing!--MONGO 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussions on the talk page. Your edits were rather POV. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was reporting the presence of a third party to McC at the relevant discussion,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Pius_XII#Visible_1_1_2006_Impossibility_of_a_Serious_Article_.3F , and answered you as seemed fair. I request you to ascertain, as does this third party, that I actually wish to allow for the entirety of relevant information. I consider the purely ecclesiastical part of this Pope, as with the previous, to be extremely relevant. I refer to the Social teachings of Pius X1, which come at the moment of the political relevance, as much as to the succeeding spiritual position of Pius XII. I am well aware that neither are sufficiently represented and would encourage you or anyone to do all of it justice. I myself am not prepared to exclude anything relevant, nor to accept arbitrary exclusions either way - which is the subject of the article resolution template. I consider that your personal duties to your faith are also relevant, just as I should expect that a possible characterisation of Piusx2 criticism could be ascertained as emanating from an equally definable portion of humanity. My personal position I also define. EffK 14:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain to me what EffK is trying to say? Perhaps I am posting in the wrong place, since I think that Patsw does not find the edits of EffK to be constructive. Robert McClenon 18:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of my RfA, and for your generous comments. I appreciate your confidence. I look forward to working with you on the pages we follow. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Late October 2005, Rush Limbaugh discussed a new reality show on BBC called Bring Your Husband to Heel. The host is dog trainer Annie Clayton. She teaches wives how to train their husbands. The show is obviously contraversial and odd, but even more odd were tha comments Rush made while discussing te reality program. "That Annie Clayton babe can go down to Abu Ghrabib, and she can bring her leesh with her". Rush has already gotten in trouble for belittling the abuse of Abu Ghrabib prisoners, but this time he sexualized it.

This is not the first time Rush Limbaugh has introduced S/m into his show. On a broadcast that occured in 2003 or 2004, he discussed how boys and girls ought to be taught in different classrooms. This came after Rush was offended by a comment from a feminist who claimed that girls and boys ought to be taught together because it would allow girls to learn how to lead men. He then recounted a story involving his then wife, Marta. He mentioned that she came to his workplace and ordered him to take her shopping. When he said later, she then screamed her head off at him, telling him to take her shopping now. Rush then sheepishly reminded his audience that women are already in charge.

Of course, by itself this story is meaningless. But considering that Rush has a history of dropping hints at a s'm lifestyle, one must draw conclusions about his sexuality.

Okay, I agree that the last part is speculative. But I dare you to prove to me that the first part- about Rush saying he wished that dog trainer would go to abu ghrabib-- didnt happen. I know it happened. It occured in the last ten minutes on August 19, 2005. On a Friday. I was wrong about ti being in late October. But I am sure it was on the 19th of august. Can you prove me wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob5005 (talk • contribs)

Dear Pat -- I invite you to respond to the NPOV discussion on the Talk page of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thanks. Morton devonshire 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Feel free to delete this.[reply]

Hi, Pat. I'm looking for advice about the problem of labelling a stub concerning an antipope. The antipope stub template was deleted, even though I wouldn't exactly say that there was consensus to delete. (See here for the last evidence of comments before that subject was removed from WP:SFD.) I think the reason behind the deletion was that you shouldn't have a special template for a stub unless it's likely that you'll have at least sixty stubs tagged with it.

Chooserr, who created the antipope stub template, has very strong opinions, and is a bit inclined to get himself into trouble as a result. He has been blocked a few times for edit warring over AD and CE: he has a strong preference for AD.

As far as I know, the general {{stub}} template is really for inexperienced Wikipedians who don't know how to find an appropriate template. If possible, other users should check the pages in the general stub category, and relabel the stubs as being connected with linguistics, Ancient Rome, Spanish Literature or whatever. Then experts in a particular field can can easily find stubs that belong to their field of expertise, if they feel inclined to help expanding these articles.

Anyway, Chooserr began to revert lots of antipope articles that had the {{pope-stub}} on them.[4] Since the antipope stub has been deleted, he just changed them back to the general stub templates. He has been asked, very nicely, to stop. I can understand how he feels — after all, it would be a bit crazy to write a short article about Lambert Simnel and put at the end, "This article about a British monarch is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

I think reverting back to {{stub}} is a no-no, as that category is meant to be kept as empty as possible. There are also {{reli-bio-stub}} and {{RC-stub}}, of course, and I think it's okay to have two stub templates at the bottom of a stub article, but I don't think there should be more.

I've been wondering about editing the {{pope-stub}} so that it could be used for antipopes without making any kind of POV statement. It currently reads as follows:

Vatican Coat of ArmsThis biography of a Pope is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it].

I thought of:

1. This article about the papacy is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
2. This papacy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
3. This article about a pope or a claimant to the papacy is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
4. This article about a pope or a claimant to the papal throne is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

What do you think? I'm not sure that an article about an antipope is really about the papacy, although in a broad, loose sense, I suppose it is. The wording "papacy-related" sounds a little awkward, but not too bad, and is probably more accurate. If you have any ideas, please let me know. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 00:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have recreated the {{Anti-Pope-stub}} stub. It was improperly deleted. There was no consensus behind it. I am really getting fed up at this stage with admins unilaterally deciding to overrule votes and forceably delete something that does not have a deletion consensus behind it. (I guess some people will go ballistic, but that deletion really is outrageous. And it is happening all over these days!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Sorry to butt in. AnnH, everything you have said above about stubs (and their desired usage) is spot on. With regards to this particular stub type, it was meant to be a rescope of {{Pope-stub}} rather than an all-out deletion of {{Anti-Pope-stub}}. I was going to add "and antipopes" to both {{pope-stub}} and Category:Pope stubs (as you are more or less trying to do now, here) but the truth of the matter is, I was distracted by real-world concerns and forgot to make this final change. I would do it today, but I'm wary of doing so for fear of being further accused of unilateral actions. If you like, I can make the change now. Otherwise I'll leave the matter in your capable collective hands. --TheParanoidOne 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pat. If you get a minute, could you have a look at a message on my talk page from GTBacchus (in the section "Stub template for anti-pope") and make a comment either there or on his talk page. Although I voted to keep the anti-pope template, I wouldn't have any objection to using the Pope one, if the wording is changed. If we had something like "or a claimant to the papacy", it wouldn't bother me that the actual template had the title {{pope-stub}}.

I'd like to get some agreement on this as soon as possible, as I don't want people tagging with the wrong template, and having to retag later when the template is deleted. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 11:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have an opportunity, there's a discussion going on here which you may want to join. Thanks...KHM03 14:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for the help at Early Christianity. It needs quite a bit of work. KHM03 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pat. There are several new users who are engaging in a revert campaign at Christianity. If you get time, you might take a look. Also, I thought you might be interested in this. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I would say that that marriage is relevant to the article. There's also the Terri Schiavo timeline. AnnH ^(talk) 20:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, but appreciate the compliment. Just trying to establish something here and there is a method to my madness...the conspiracy theories in these related articles are getting out of control and unless someone says, no, we not allowing conspiracy theories in these articles, then there is no baseline of what is tolerated and what isn't as far as fact based information. I recognize that not every person on the planet agrees with the findings of the Sept 11 commission, FEMA and NIST, but I do not condone much more than a passing tidbid of information for such far fetched notions as a controlled demolition opinion. The BYU report is completely fringe and as far as I am concerned, has no more pertinence in article space than does Erik Beckjord's website which discussess that Bigfoot travels to Earth via Wormholes. Forgive me if I seem obstinate.--MONGO 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sent you email--MONGO 11:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My tabs are telling me it is protected...I'll check the logs again and if not, will sprotect. Jus so you know, there is a strong push by controlled demolition speculators to get equal time in the Collapse of the WTC article...while I agree that the Feds are hardly perfect, this kind of speculation is based on ridiculousness to the point of outrageousness.--MONGO 05:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this exact moment, it seems quiet. I can only sprotect if the vandalism becomes persistent again...I will reassess in 2 hours and if it has commenced again, I'll sprotect. thanks for the heads up.--MONGO 05:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinktulip's latest comment to you on the 9/11 article discussion page is over my head...is there another article you two have locked horns on?--MONGO 01:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Pinktulip went ahead and cut it. Are you agreeable? I'm neither here nor there on it but I think it rather lopsided now. I can't stand talking to him on the talk page. Marskell 07:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7306483/site/newsweek , Arian Campo-Flores writes:

By 1981, in her senior year at an all-girls Roman Catholic high school, she had reached as much as 250 pounds—at which point she went on a NutriSystem diet and quickly lost about 100 pounds.

Do you think that Arian was exaggerting or being careless? Is citing a maximum as a maximum not fair? -- Pinktulip 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You really do look like that old British military officer artwork! Nicely done. I hope you feel my contributions to Laura Ingraham's article are, however slight, an improvement. I welcome your input.  :-) Lawyer2b 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kark Bunker is insisting on his own way with the Anselm page. I am trying to get arbitration, to avoid an edit war, but he seems to hold that it is not his fault that he has acted on his own initiative and broken from his agreement to work on a consensus. Would really appreciate you intervention, help or otherwise. Can you call in an arbiter? --Br Alexis Bugnolo 12:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "unverified" that Mayor Giuliani is a member of the Trilateral Commission (TC). That article includes a membership list - the very same list publicly available from the TC itself. There is a link on TC's website, www.trilateral.org, that lets anyone request a free copy of a membership list, which they email to the requester as a MS Word file a couple of days later. I obtained the list this way, and Mayor Giuliani's name was right there. Thus, the fact is verified. Try it yourself! =) 65.28.2.172 01:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to my preferences and the "Date and time" tab, that's where users can choose their date format preference. Americans generally prefer "January 15, 2001", but the British, Canadians, ... usually prefer "15 January 2001". By wikilinking both the the date and year, as January 15, 2001, the date preferences will display in accordance to user preferences. Without the wikilinks, it will display January 15, 2001, no matter what the user preferences. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what if someone chooses "2001 January 15" or "2001-01-15" as their date preference. Both the [[month day]] and [[year]] should be linked to make the date preferences completely work for everyone. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrick. Would you be interested in WikiProject Catholicism ? --WikiCats 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Patrick. I saw your edits to Francis Cardinal Spellman's article. While I'm glad the style has been improved thorugh your efforts, I'm disappointed that you removed the apostolic succession chart. I agree with what you said: that it is reproduced at catholic-hierarchy.org. But does that disqualify it from inclusion? Much of what is on Wikipedia can be found elsewhere on-line, but gathering it all at one source makes such information greater than the sum of its parts, wouldn't you say? And part of the reason I copied over that information was that I wish, eventually, to also show the apostlic succession of schismatics (e.g., Old Catholics, Anglicans, Palmarians) and have it link together with regular ordinations of Roman Catholic bishops. Even though the Church considers some of their ordinations irregular (see Apostolicae Curae), the succession is important for historical purposes.

So, before I restore it, do you have any objections? Coemgenus 13:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing I could find to a citation on this was a comment on a forum from someone in the industry responding specifically to that allegation:[5]

"I've had enough. The term "pull it" means pull it over. The term isn't used much today, because of the modern equipment used by demolition contractors. Fifty years ago wrecking contractors were less affluent, they depended more on ingenuity in the work place than on equipment. This was especially true when large buildings were taken down with hand labor. In those situations most interior and exterior walls had to be cabled and "pulled" in onto floors. Before you "pulled" the walls you would place old truck tires on the floor to cushion the shook and maintain the integrity of the floor your working on. In those days wrecking contractors would often attach cables to trucks or a dozer to collapse a section of a building or whole buildings. With advent of backhoes, skid loaders you don't have the need for cabling that you did in those days"

Beyond that I don't think you'll find much, because the Conspiracy Theorists are just "making s*** up." Technically I don't think you really need a citation beyond what is there though; the important part is that the claim was made.

And besides, the sillyness of the argument kind of speaks for itself. (A man who is not a demolitions expert makes a Freudian slip on camera where he uses demolitions jargon?)--DCAnderson 18:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories is the article. patsw 04:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references font-size proposal was resurrected [6], and I notice it has actually been implemented. [7] Not entirely sure it will last, though. Either way, you can go into your monobook.css (e.g. User:Patsw/monobook.css) and set your preference for font-size, by adding:

ol.references { font-size: 100%; } 

and setting font-size percentage to whatever you want. This overrides the sitewide default. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the entire contents of "The Pile" to "World Trade Center site". I did not leave out a single word. --Grocer 07:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can recall where you saw the pentacle as a symbol of Christ, please let me know. patsw 18:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find it. I found the text "Christians once commonly used the pentagram to represent the five wounds of Jesus" in the pentagram article. Also from Symbols and symbolism in Christian demonology "The pentagram, which was at one stage a Christian symbol denoting the five wounds of Christ". After doing som googling I also found "There are many connections between the pentagram and Christianity. Before the cross, it was a preferred emblem to adorn the jewelry and amulets of early Christians (followed by an 'x' or a phoenix). The pentagram was associated with the five wounds of Christ"[8] // Liftarn

Yes...8 World Trade Center never existed of course. I guess I meant the fires in almost every surrounding building next to the WTC. I recognize that I am the most belligerent person at times, but I am never mad. I actually have fun for the most part becuase I know they are wrong in their stance and wrong in the way they wish to misuse this resource. Just so you know I am always, regardless as it may appear otherwise, completely in control of my choice of wording. I usually start off nice with each newer POV pusher and it escalates along the same pattern as they never seem to stop asking the same questions. Your contributions are measured and highly appreciated, I appreciate that, as well as your kind words at AN/I.[9]. Thanks.--MONGO 04:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This move makes sense because Counter-Reformation implies that that the movement was against reform. Rather as a reform movement within the Catholic Church, it is most precisely known as the Catholic Reformation. This is now the more favored term in academic theological circles.

Please stop by talk:Counter-Reformation for the vote. Thanks, --Vaquero100 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 05:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WOT has opened its straw poll, and is open to discussion. Rangeley 00:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> So I invite you to look at Talk:Rush Limbaugh where the Palm Beach Airport incident is in an editing dispute

I don't care about Limbaugh, and that's about a private matter. The HRC Gold Star matter, had it had any substance, would have been relevant to her public duties, and thus fit to include. But as my Talk entry says, I now agree with you that it had no substance and deserves to go. Wasted Time R 02:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion that I look at the Northwest Indian War article. I made some format changes per your suggestion, as well as adding some text that hopefully better rounds out the campaign. Anything else you would like to see? Scott Mingus 23:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a vote you may be interested in. It's all about the votes, brother. Vaquero100 07:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you had tried to clean up the Governors Island article a while back. The same biased "legacy" section continues to return... only now with links to an outside "foundation" pushing its agenda for the island. The legacy section is clearly being used to support a non-neutral POV by lending credibility to this "foundation"'s views. Any support in straightening this thing out would be appreciated. I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia procedure to engage in much more than pointless reversions. -- Johnichiban 18:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Laura Ingraham.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Yamla 17:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed. I'm contacting the show for clarification. patsw 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a message to several recent editors of Schiavo-related pages, I write that: Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton.

--GordonWatts 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]