Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 40

message: # I like pics. You can argue about the relevance of them of course, but they break up the page and irrelevance aside they never hurt (the way mis-information can). I initially edited the memorial section and removed a pic (we don't need two of the same thing!) but one is fair enough.
# Gordon, if you pursue an RfC against FuelWagon you will get no support from me. None at all. Indeed I will attempt to support FW as best I can—and, BTW, drop the Be A Man bullshit. It doesn't do anything for you. FuelWagon has been frustratingly frustrated the last few days—i.e., I've argued about edits that I thought he was ignoring consensus on but he has not hijacked the article. I do feel, Gordon, that you have hijacked this, for the sake of the FA nom. 
# Further we need a vote on whether to revert the side article removal OR PROCEDE FORWARD. I moved the resuscitation (sp!) order back to here, for instance, in effort to proceed forward. But I want to know: edit as if the court cases are gone or debate about their re-insertion.
:"resuscitation (sp!)" -- Spelling fixed by Microsoft Works (not Word, but close), I hope you don't mind?--GordonWatts 00:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say reinsert the legal history and then start trimming the fat on it. Some of the stuff is either redundant or never amounted to anything in court. FuelWagon 23:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "You should add a note to the effect that permission has been confirmed on the article's talk page (not in the article itself), but avoid disclosing unnecessary personal details such as email addresses or telephone numbers. You may wish to use the  template for this purpose."
*Conclusion: We can make a note here in this post that I gave permissions for some picture(s) currently in the article under GFDL. I officially state this and sign my name here. Is this sufficient to "add a note" to this talk page, as opposed to using the template. What say my favorite lawyers?--GordonWatts 00:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few Points 

message: I agree with Wagon on several key points:
*The template: The "permissions" template at the top of the page smells like "vanity" -even thought it is policy, but I think there is a "legal loophole" that will allow us to use the pictures without posting the template on the page, but I'll have to check it out and report back. As a "gesture of good faith," I'll leave the template off the page for the moment while I check. (We all need more "gestures of good faith," lol, don't we??)
*Article Length: Since Wagon's getting beat up by many people (self included), I am glad that I can say I agree with him on "article length" too, but I was viciously beaten down by overwhelming consensus, and i graciously yielded to the wises of the larger good. To answer Marskell: While I was upset that I had to split it, the split was "destiny, and I accept it, thus I shall vote to keep the legal "sub-article" separate. (It is preserved in links leading to selected legal time-lines.)
*"we need a vote on whether to revert the side article removal OR PROCEDE FORWARD" Gordon has no problem voting, and I say "proceed forward" --and do not revert to the more lengthy version. "Have Faith," -trust me. "Would I lie to you?" (Quoting Joe Isuzu)
*An article CAN INDEED have fair use photos and still be a Featured Article (which I know to be true, because the recent "Scientology Space Opera" Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/September_2005, the FA-for Sept. 10, 2005, had one Fair Use pic. Article: Space_opera_%28Scientology%29 and pic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg
*There was indeed one grave pic by Neutrality, which I replaced because Jumbo said to replace Fair Use with GFDL is possible, and I went to Terri's grave, said a prayer for her, took a pic, said a prayer for myself, and uploaded, not necessarily in that order.
*Yes, an article like this should have ample pics, GFDL if possible. I like pictures, since I can't read. ... (Pregnant pause) ha ha...
*No, Marskell, I did not mean to offend Wagon by the "be a man" speech; I meant only a little encouragement, to show him that, since I survived, he will survive too -and a little humor -that's all. If you are still uncertain, read my post here, and notice that I'm trying to argue Wagon's points if and when possible.
*Did I cover all points? I hope.--GordonWatts 00:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "You should add a note to the effect that permission has been confirmed on the article's talk page (not in the article itself), but avoid disclosing unnecessary personal details such as email addresses or telephone numbers. You may wish to use the  template for this purpose."
*Conclusion: We can make a note here in this post that I gave permissions for some picture(s) currently in the article under GFDL. I officially state this and sign my name here. Is this sufficient to "add a note" to this talk page, as opposed to using the template. What say my favorite lawyers?--GordonWatts 00:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief Reply by Gordon on several points

message: I have a question, do you think three photos in the section with Terri's grave is an overkill of the use of photos. I do not mind having one photo of her grave, then we could upload the other photos to the Wikimedia Comnmons, so we can let other Wikipedia's use the photos Gordon took (thanks again). Also, I believe that if we have legal texts that are in the public domain relating to this case, we could post them at Wikisource. Zach (Sound Off) 05:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was OK with one, but others started tampering with the article, and I said "let's improve it" --no revenge or anything, but frustration. For the record, another editor was OK with two images, having removed one -and then craziness happened and removed ALL of them (several editors had ganged up on me, but we cleared them out). Then, one pic was put back. Three? Yes, it's a lot, but this is a long article. The other issues overshadow the image dispute -and need our attention even more.--GordonWatts 05:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I was OK with one, but others started tampering with the article, and I said "let's improve it"" That qualifies as disrupting wikipedia to make a point rather than to make an article better. The article was down to one or zero photos. Because you wanted one and I deleted it, you decided to push in three photos instead. That is blatantly a bad faith edit, Gordon. FuelWagon 21:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "disrupting wikipedia to make a point" No. I am not trying to "make a point." Two or three pictures do belong, or otherwise (1) I would not have put them in; (2) Marskell would not have put them in after they were deleted; and, (3) Most others would not have remained silent and raised no objection; However, #'s 1, 2, AND 3 are quite true. Most do believe the pics are a good thing -and pretty, so, I'm standing on principal, not "making a point." Are you not jealous that I took the pics? If so, then you can take some and GFDL release them. If not, then cheer me on -and cheer on Terri Schiavo's article.--GordonWatts 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Three pictures of the gravesite, gravestone, and cemetary; you're saying they all belong? You're saying that given a biographical article about someone's life, that an image of them alive, a cat scan, and three photos of their grave is appropriate? You're not standing on principle, Gordon, you're standing on nothing but bullheadedness. The debate was 1 photo or 0 photos. When I voted for 0 photo, you pouted and bumped it to 3, and then caused a little edit war and got the article locked. That's not principle, that's a temper-tantrum. FuelWagon 02:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been watching this from a distance, but perhaps if the gravesite and ceremonies is of notable status in and of itself, several images could belong with a (new?) article about the gravesite, the memorial, etc? The images are then put to good use, the knowledge about the subject is expanded, and there is less of a battle over the images being on this particular page? Ronabop 08:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'm happy with one image, and I think it looks nice, and makes it easier on the eye.  Long web pages with only text place an extra burden on the reader. I'm frankly puzzled at FuelWagon's persistence in removing Gordon's images, when he made absolutely no protest about Neutrality's very similar (but copyrighted) image. My vote would be for the SchiavoGrave.jpg image – the one that's currently  on the bottom right of the "Memorial" section. My second choice would be the SchiavoHeadstoneAndGrave.jpg image, on the left. I see no need for SylvanAbbey.jpg, although I appreciate that one takes lots of photos and then makes a judgment as to which ones are most appropriate. I particularly liked the photo of the hospice, which is now gone, but that whole section seems to have been removed. I think it's a bit strange that the first mention the article makes of the hospice is in the context of Greer forbidding the DCF to remove Terri from the hospice in March 2005. (How did she come to be in a hospice in the first place?) It doesn't strike me as good writing to introduce new information as if it's already known. Ann Heneghan (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Gordon. You obviously know nothing of copyright law. It doesn't matter what percentage is "fair use" versus GFDL. A photo is either "fair use" or it is not. The two important photos in the article (Terri and the cat scan) are both fair use. Adding a picture of her gravestone doesn't change that in any way. It can still be disputed in court by the copyright owners, and it is problematic for anyone who makes downstream derivatives of wikipedia because GFDL doesn't apply to those two photos. You haven't fixed anythign by adding another separate photo. You've only attempted a shell game that doesn't work for anyone who knows copyright law. FuelWagon 22:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But you haven't explained why you object so strongly to having one photo of the grave added by Gordon, when you didn't object to Neutrality's. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuelwagon's explination that he removed the GFDL picture because we have two fair use pictures makes absolutely no sense. I strongly agree with Ann - having a single picture of the grave is a very reasonable thing to do. →Raul654 22:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And Raul's refusal to get it is due in no part to multiple attempts by me to explain. Gordon says adding GFDL photos will help get FA status. FA status doesn't like "Fair Use" photos because "fair use" is tenable at best, lawsuit at worst. It also makes downstream derivatives problematic since downstream versions need to know what is not GFDL so a downstream version doesn't take just the "fair use" photo from wikipedia and publish it by itself, which no longer qualifies as fair use. You can try to get away with calling a picture of Terri to be "Fair Use" when embedded in a large article. But if you take the photo by itself and attempt to publish it alone, you no longer qualify for "Fair Use" protection. The problem is the picture of Terri and the image of the cat scan can only be used under "fair use", which is tricky and teneble. Adding photos of Terri's grave doesn't change the issues with "fair use". Gordon's excuse of adding the pictures to fix the problem with "Fair use" is a strawman. It doesn't fix anything around "fair use". You guys get a keyboard and think you can slap a GFDL license on anything? That isn't how copyright works. So, gordon cant hide behind the false "it fixes fair use" excuse. The only reason to add it would be because it makes the article better. And someone, please, tell me, how many biographical articles on wikipedia show a picture of their gravestone? I poked around and didn't find any. This photo adds nothing to the article. No other biographical article includes a similar photo. And the article loses nothing if the image is removed. FuelWagon 02:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "someone, please, tell me, how many biographical articles on wikipedia show a picture of their gravestone?" If you tell me how many cases had direct intervention bu a governor, president, and pope, then I'll tell you the answer to your question.--GordonWatts 03:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, sure, you make yourself sound so reasonable, Ann. All I needed to do was object to the photo earlier, and then it would be OK. Sure. Lemme spell it out for you. You are giving me static about one photo. Imagine what this talk page would look like if I raised every objection that I have with the article simultaneously. Yeah, you, gordon and the whole POV team would be having a coniption fit. I've been focusing on more important stuff like getting the 10 year legal history gaping whole back into the main article (with special thanks to gordon for cutting it out in the first place in his obsessive compulsive pursuit of FA status). I've let other stuff go. If something is marginal and the focus is somewhere else, I'll leave it alone. But now, Gordon is pushing the issue, he's launched his little edit war to the point of inserting three pictures that are pointless into the article. He has now disrupted wikipedia to make a point, again. So, now I'm focused on it. I never liked the photo. I find it pointless in adding anything of value to the article, and I find it to be insincerely appealing to emotions in a very tragic case. Just how many biographical articles in wikipedia have pictures of the person's gravestone? FuelWagon 22:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "...he's launched his little edit war to the point of inserting three pictures that are pointless into the article. He has now disrupted wikipedia to make a point, again." Uh... No. I am not trying to "make a point." Two or three pictures do belong, or otherwise (1) I would not have put them in; (2) Marskell would not have put them in after they were deleted; and, (3) Most others would not have remained silent and raised no objection; However, #'s 1, 2, AND 3 are quite true. Most do believe the pics are a good thing -and pretty, so, I'm standing on principal, not "making a point." Are you not jealous that I took the pics? If so, then you can take some and GFDL release them. If not, then cheer me on -and cheer on Terri Schiavo's article.--GordonWatts 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, Gordon, how many biographical articles on wikipedia about someone notable and recently deceased that contains three images of their gravesite? You weren't trying to make a point? What were you trying to do? Certainly not make the Terri Schiavo article conform to any other biograhical article on wikipedia. FuelWagon 03:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you tell me how many people who received direct intervention from Congress, a Governor, a president, and a pope, then I'll tell you the answer you seek.--GordonWatts 03:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct intervention by congress, state governor, and president would justify why Terri Schiavo is notable. That doesn't justify putting a picture of her tombstone in a biographical article. It certainly doesn't explain or justify three pictures. Congressional intervention has nothing to do with a picture of her tombstone. Try answering the question for once, Gordon. This is a red herring. FuelWagon 03:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image overkill? 

message: Wagon made the point that more GFDL pics don't help the current Fair Use pics, but here is why he is wrong:
Suppose you had an article with one line (one sentence) of text and about 20-25 photos that were Fair Use: You know what would happen? LAWSUIT, hello?!
OK, now, suppose you had an encyclopedia with, say, 20,000 or 30,000 pages, and 20-25 Fair Use pics, BUT with MANY lines of text --AND about 4,000-5,000 GFDL pics -in which the Fair Use pics were thinly spread out -simply to make a point or to clarify -but were not the article themselves. (You know, like when a writer of a LONG article makes like 1 or 2 quotes of a famous person -and gives credit to the copyright holder -under fair use.)
You know what? It would be OK.
AN EXAMPLE for User:FuelWagon: When I was a student at Florida State University, one student, Robert Potter got the University in BIG trouble with local media (Google lookup & "Florida State U. Accused of Bullying Outspoken Student"). He harshley criticized FSU, and the President, Sandy D'Alemberte, complained about it -and this made the local papers.
So?
One newspaper printed the letter that ran in the other newspaper -but it was Fair Use: The story was about that -no lawsuit.
However, had the FSView printed EVERY letter that ran in the Tallahassee Democrat's letters pages -then, we'd be having copyrvio lawsuits a jumpin'.
OK, Wagon, get the picture? If the Fair Use pics are a "small percentage" of the article, then OK, so increasing quantity of GFDL pics reduces the Fair Use percentage. Yo, I'm tired, and upset that I'd have to explain this, but I hope it helps.--GordonWatts 20:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gordon. You obviously know nothing of copyright law. It doesn't matter what percentage is "fair use" versus GFDL. A photo is either "fair use" or it is not. The two important photos in the article (Terri and the cat scan) are both fair use. Adding a picture of her gravestone doesn't change that in any way. It can still be disputed in court by the copyright owners, and it is problematic for anyone who makes downstream derivatives of wikipedia because GFDL doesn't apply to those two photos. You haven't fixed anythign by adding another separate photo. You've only attempted a shell game that doesn't work for anyone who knows copyright law. FuelWagon 22:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But you haven't explained why you object so strongly to having one photo of the grave added by Gordon, when you didn't object to Neutrality's. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuelwagon's explination that he removed the GFDL picture because we have two fair use pictures makes absolutely no sense. I strongly agree with Ann - having a single picture of the grave is a very reasonable thing to do. →Raul654 22:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And Raul's refusal to get it is due in no part to multiple attempts by me to explain. Gordon says adding GFDL photos will help get FA status. FA status doesn't like "Fair Use" photos because "fair use" is tenable at best, lawsuit at worst. It also makes downstream derivatives problematic since downstream versions need to know what is not GFDL so a downstream version doesn't take just the "fair use" photo from wikipedia and publish it by itself, which no longer qualifies as fair use. You can try to get away with calling a picture of Terri to be "Fair Use" when embedded in a large article. But if you take the photo by itself and attempt to publish it alone, you no longer qualify for "Fair Use" protection. The problem is the picture of Terri and the image of the cat scan can only be used under "fair use", which is tricky and teneble. Adding photos of Terri's grave doesn't change the issues with "fair use". Gordon's excuse of adding the pictures to fix the problem with "Fair use" is a strawman. It doesn't fix anything around "fair use". You guys get a keyboard and think you can slap a GFDL license on anything? That isn't how copyright works. So, gordon cant hide behind the false "it fixes fair use" excuse. The only reason to add it would be because it makes the article better. And someone, please, tell me, how many biographical articles on wikipedia show a picture of their gravestone? I poked around and didn't find any. This photo adds nothing to the article. No other biographical article includes a similar photo. And the article loses nothing if the image is removed. FuelWagon 02:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "someone, please, tell me, how many biographical articles on wikipedia show a picture of their gravestone?" If you tell me how many cases had direct intervention bu a governor, president, and pope, then I'll tell you the answer to your question.--GordonWatts 03:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, sure, you make yourself sound so reasonable, Ann. All I needed to do was object to the photo earlier, and then it would be OK. Sure. Lemme spell it out for you. You are giving me static about one photo. Imagine what this talk page would look like if I raised every objection that I have with the article simultaneously. Yeah, you, gordon and the whole POV team would be having a coniption fit. I've been focusing on more important stuff like getting the 10 year legal history gaping whole back into the main article (with special thanks to gordon for cutting it out in the first place in his obsessive compulsive pursuit of FA status). I've let other stuff go. If something is marginal and the focus is somewhere else, I'll leave it alone. But now, Gordon is pushing the issue, he's launched his little edit war to the point of inserting three pictures that are pointless into the article. He has now disrupted wikipedia to make a point, again. So, now I'm focused on it. I never liked the photo. I find it pointless in adding anything of value to the article, and I find it to be insincerely appealing to emotions in a very tragic case. Just how many biographical articles in wikipedia have pictures of the person's gravestone? FuelWagon 22:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "...he's launched his little edit war to the point of inserting three pictures that are pointless into the article. He has now disrupted wikipedia to make a point, again." Uh... No. I am not trying to "make a point." Two or three pictures do belong, or otherwise (1) I would not have put them in; (2) Marskell would not have put them in after they were deleted; and, (3) Most others would not have remained silent and raised no objection; However, #'s 1, 2, AND 3 are quite true. Most do believe the pics are a good thing -and pretty, so, I'm standing on principal, not "making a point." Are you not jealous that I took the pics? If so, then you can take some and GFDL release them. If not, then cheer me on -and cheer on Terri Schiavo's article.--GordonWatts 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, Gordon, how many biographical articles on wikipedia about someone notable and recently deceased that contains three images of their gravesite? You weren't trying to make a point? What were you trying to do? Certainly not make the Terri Schiavo article conform to any other biograhical article on wikipedia. FuelWagon 03:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you tell me how many people who received direct intervention from Congress, a Governor, a president, and a pope, then I'll tell you the answer you seek.--GordonWatts 03:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct intervention by congress, state governor, and president would justify why Terri Schiavo is notable. That doesn't justify putting a picture of her tombstone in a biographical article. It certainly doesn't explain or justify three pictures. Congressional intervention has nothing to do with a picture of her tombstone. Try answering the question for once, Gordon. This is a red herring. FuelWagon 03:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One more time: Why GFDL can help Fair Use

message: Some of the most important bits of the timeline were offloaded to the subarticle while some of the total irrelevencies that would be gone if this article were not in a constant state of POV war remain here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a merge back in general but the length remains the issue. The court cases sub-article is 39 K. Cut that by 40% and I say yes. Marskell 15:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Compromise. If you can get someone in a Featured Edit capacity to stop complaining about article length's affect on FA-criteria to the extent that this good article is FEATURED already --and, if you will not delete even one whit, not a jot or a tittle, not a bit -then I will support merge-back -if and only if these conditions are met. Came known as "The Watts Compromise of 2005."--GordonWatts 01:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we cut lots of stuff from both articles? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: How many biographical articles on wikipedia about someone recently deceased contains a picture of their gravestone? The photo adds nothing. And despite any jailhouse lawyering, it does nothing to solve any "fair use" problems associated with the other photos in the article. I think it should be removed. Gordon's reaction of inserting three pictures of the gravesite are clearly not good faith. FuelWagon 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Certainly, a number of FA comments said something to the effect that an article should be stable before getting FA status. Given Gordon's recent gutting of a 10 year history, his vanity links thrashing, and yesterday's edit war and subsequent "lock" on the page, I think it's safe to say that Gordon has pushed any possibility of FA status out by at least 6 to 12 months. The best version of this article was just before Gordon nominated it for FA status and started a quixotic mission of trying to win consensus when the voting was overwhelmingly against. FuelWagon 03:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courtcases mergeback 

message: OK, I think the article should have stayed at its original approximately 80 KB length, but I was voted down and accepted consensus here, but when Calton claimed that the paragraph he deleted belonged in the legal sub-article, I think he was not really serious; BUT, let's say he was serious: How would we do what he (and apparently Wagon) are asking -to take the paragraph and delete it?
Well, when you take out that paragraph, you have to take out everything in between it and the next closest point on the legal timeline -so you have a "continuous" legal sub-article.
IN PLAIN ENGLISH: If you remove a paragraph from the "Government involvement" section and place it in the new sub-article titled "Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case," then you would have to remove the whole "Government involvement" section and the "Do-not-resuscitate order" sdection -at the very least -since the "Do-not-resuscitate order" section is in-between and would need to be in the sub-article to stay in chronological order -and be in with the other legal stuff.
I say that we don't need chop the article as much as Wagon and Calton want --but, on the other hand, I oppose merging back as Marskell requests; I support a "compromise" in which the split that exists remains -but no more splits. We work with what we have: We need to be tough soldiers.--GordonWatts 03:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gordon, can you ever give a short reply? No, we don't need a compromise, we need a good article. (and how is it that every compromise you propose turns out to be everything that you wanted anyway?) a 10 year hole isn't a good article. if you have to read two articles to find out the various points of view about Terri's wishes and condition and the like, then you don't have a stand-alone article. Reading about Terri's collapse, then clicking over to a different article to read about all the court cases and medical disputes, then popping back to teh first article to read about the autopsy isn't a good article. rejoin and trim. We need a whole article, not a two-part sequel. FuelWagon 03:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Gordon, can you ever give a short reply?" OK, this will be short but to-the-point. "and how is it that every compromise you propose turns out to be everything that you wanted anyway?" Luck? God's blessing? I didn't make it up; I really do want to split is less than you and Calton -but more than Marskell. "if you have to read two articles to... then you don't have a stand-alone article...then clicking over to a different article...then popping back to teh first article to read about the autopsy isn't a good article." OK, I don;t like it either, but it will work if the person really wants to see the story -he-she can click on the links. If it makes you feel any better, you can quote me as supporting your stance, but if the "consensus gods" go against us, and say 80 Kilobytes is too long, we must accept fate and destiny's blessings. "We need a whole article, not a two-part sequel." Well-said, but we are voted down; Accept it; You'll be less stressed, Wagon.--GordonWatts 04:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gordon, just stop using the word "consensus". You've never used it to mean what consensus actually means. You've only bandied it about as an excuse to do something that you wanted to do anyway. "Consensus made me do it". No, You wanted to do it, and you call 4-3 a "consensus". You use FA comments saying that the article is "too long" and use it as an excuse that "consensus demands" that we cut out the legal history. No, that isn't what consensus demands. That was your particular attempt at satisfying the FA voters. The article can keep it's entire history and ismply trim down and satisify the FA voter "consensus" that way. Every time you hijack the article you cite "consensus" is on your side. There has never been a consensus behind any of your major churn and burn edits, Gordon. Never. Stop abusing that word. FuelWagon 04:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Giving Calton help defending his point: