Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 30

message: May I suggest that parties to the mediation avoid making any "reversions"? Moreover, an Edit Summary like revert to last version by Stanselmdoc doesn't really sum anything up.
Our mediation seems to have stalled. Your choices at this point are (1) fire me, or (2) return to the Mediation. I've never failed yet, but if you feel I have failed you, say so. Don't just sneak away. Uncle Ed 20:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Ed, I don't think at all that you have failed, nor that mediation has failed. I do think the process has, as you say, stalled. A group of editors have worked hard over this article (in part or in whole) and contributed immensely to bringing it to where it is today; when one compares it to where it was even a few months ago (if you've a sturdy heart, see for example ), the improvement is very encouraging. However, part of this group of hard-working aditors have not been able to contribute more actively to Mediation, for reasons that have probably to do with personal commitments. I note in particular the absence of Ann Heneghan, who I feel has very valuable points of view to contribute.
:While this has stalled the Mediation process temporarily, it need not fail. It would have to move more slowly, by necessity, but a lot can still be accomplished. I proposed once before, privately, to Ghost (another sterling editor), that the medication may work best if each point of contention is addressed in turn, one at a time. You could table the topic to be discussed, the editors could discuss it, and a decision can finally be made - it may not fully satisfy everyone, but perhaps it might be understood that that is the best decision.
:Writing 500 word summaries is an excellent way to begin getting a feel for everyone's broad POV, and identify some of the issues that need mediation and discussion. But further progress is unlikely to occur unless the precise points of contention are considered in turn. In line with this, I seem to remember your request from a few days back where you suggested something similar, on the mediation page.
:The technicalities of the process - whether the article needs to be locked or not, etc - are better commented on by wiser heads than mine. FWIW, I'm sceptical that that is ideal.
:The Terri Schiavo article is old, and it has always been controversial. It will likely stay this way for some time. But we should be able to make some progress, if we work at it.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 21:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
::I have just noticed that the revert war may begin once more, this time with Ann starting it. Ed, I think the most productive way of moving this forward is to discuss specific points of contention. The state of the article and the version it should remain in (if any one in particular) during this period is something I think you'll have to decide, as Mediator. If there are daily revert wars going on, with each editor keeping score of their revert "opportunities," while Mediation proceeds in the next page, I wonder how it will be possible to make much progress.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 22:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:::Hello, Uncle Ed, my recent silence on the mediation page has been partly because I was busy, but also partly because I wasn't sure what you wanted us to do.  I understood that we each had 500 words.  I provided my summary, and then I waited.  Another editor commented.  I disagreed with some of his comments.  He seemed to imply that it was slighty petty to worry about whether or not it's true that Michael Schiavo was woken by a noise in the night.  I feel strongly that things should not be asserted as facts when they have not been proved.  They should be clearly identified as "he said", "she said", etc.  I can only imagine the fury that would be provoked if I inserted into the article that Michael Schiavo used to ask "when is that bitch gonna die?", rather than stating the Nurse Iyer claimed that he used to say that.  I might add that I wouldn't dream of making such an edit.  I do not deny that my personal sympathies lie with the Schindlers.  However, I do not support the insertion of any uncorroborated statements in support of either party, without clearly identifying them as hearsay.  When one editor made a long comment on another editor's summary, and the other editor then claimed that that gave him the right to a second turn, the first editor responded offensively (in my view), and the whole mediation seemed to fall apart.  I didn't want to get involved.  I'm very happy to continue with the meditation (although I have to do a project proposal before next Wednesday), if I know that I'm supposed to continue adding comments.
:::And hello, Neuroscientist.  Thank you for your kind remarks above.  No, I certainly will not get into a revert war, unless I feel that another editor's dignity is being deliberately attacked (as has, unfortunately, happened in the past).  If you look at my contributions,  you'll find that my proportion of reverts is very low.  I reverted once last night, because I felt that the reverting of SlimVirgin's edits and the comments on the talk page were not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, which encourages a welcoming attitude, the avoidance of aggressive comments, and discussion before reverting.  Of course, that would not apply to vandalism.  But SlimVirgin's edits, while they certainly went against the POV of FuelWagon and Duckecho, were not vandalism, nonsense, or POV pushing.  If I remember correctly (I haven't looked it up recently), Wikipedia policy suggests that editors should try to improve an edit, rather than revert it, and that if they disagree with an edit, they should discuss it on the talk page before reverting, in the hope that the other editor may agree, and may even make the change himself.  I don't always follow that myself, but I do not think that SlimVirgin's edits should have been treated as vandalism.  The main point about those edits, in my opinion, was that they annoyed two editors who adhere to the majority POV, and who have therefore been left largely unopposed in their edits.  I didn't go straight to bed after reverting last night, so I saw that Duckecho had reverted to what he called "the last stable version before the attacks", but I left it like that.  I don't think it was appropriate to call SlimVirgin's edits "attacks".  You may not agree - in fact, you probably won't - but that's okay.  I just want to explain my edit.  And by the way - this is to everyone - if ever I fail to explain an edit properly, please understand that it's simply because I don't have time.  Ann Heneghan 17:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: This has to stop. I'm asking FuelWagon and Duckecho to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and to start editing in accordance with them. A key point in NPOV is that debates should be described, not engaged in. You two are engaging in, not describing, the Schiavo dispute on this page, and effectively holding this article hostage, which can't be allowed to continue, because you've been doing it for too long, and the result is a POV and poorly cited article. The effect of that is that the "other side" comes charging in to make what they see as NPOV corrections, but goes too far in the other direction, leading you two to become even more possessive. The dynamic has to stop.
Thank you Fuelwagon, I know what PVS is. The prognosis is always poor, but at the beginning it's more hopeful than after months and years. You're arguing now for the sake of it.  SlimVirgin (talk) 01:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:POV article? Cite the POV issues you have with it. You claimed you were copy editing for style and readability, now you're claiming there are POV problems? I suggest you read this: . The article has already been peer reviewed and the general consensus was that it was "about as NPOV as it can get" (as I recall the quote). I wish you would make up your mind what your problem with this article is. In any event, I'm not interested in your personal advice although I'd suggest you start in at home, first. Duckecho (Talk) 02:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV problem

message: I hate to do this, but it looks like there is more controversy, but before anyone starts squawking, let me assure you, I'm NPOV: I won't take ANYONE's side: I find some faults (and merits) on both (all) sides. So, as Grandmaster Flash once said:
*Pull up your seats, class is in session
*The master’s gonna teach you all a good lesson
*It’s an open invitation despite what you’ve heard
*And the first to come will be the first served
:You're a little bite weird, aren't you, Gordon? If it works for you carry on, by all means, but it needed to be said.
:Fox1 20:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the spacecraft just landed to drop ME off here to FIX this problem. But just remember ONE thing, El Primo Zorro: If We look weird to you Native Earthlings ...Y'all look weird to US too.!.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is helpful. FuelWagon 17:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more, you rack up some major points on points you made, FW, but I don't know if it will be enough for a clear victory. We'll find out when scoring is complete.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Gordon, scoring, and using words such as 'battle' and 'combatants' is really, really, really, really, really not helping.  Also, I don't think Duck 'gamed' anything ... you're picking up neat terms from scrolling through Arbitration decisions again, aren't you? Proto t c 19:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoring 

message: FuelWagon, I can no longer deal with you regarding editing this article. In the last 24 hours, you have called me an arrogant cuss, a jerkoff, a f**%!ng jerk, arrogant, ignorant, a troll, and a f**%!ng *$$s0le. I've seen language like this on WP only from the very worst offenders and vandals, and you can't be allowed to continue doing it, whether to me or to anyone else. I'm therefore withdrawing from editing this article, I hope only temporarily, until I decide whether it's appropriate to approach this as an admin, or whether to pursue dispute resolution as an editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:All personal attacks should be removed on sight. --Viriditas  | Talk 19:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks

message: Whereas the 1990 photo is more suited for its "early life" section. Shem(talk) 21:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's main photo should be as recent as possible. 

message: Thank God the Schiavo case is over and done with. Terri is freed from her earthly shackles, and her parents can go back to their normal lives (whatever those may be), their celebrity having gone way past its allotted 15 minutes. This was about money and control and ego. Nothing more. And the media sucked up this circus with relish. It was great theater. But then the Pope died. Aha! A real story! Kiss off, Schindlers, you've had your moment in the Florida sun. You're yesterday's news now. Wahkeenah 06:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finis 

message: : Don't write copy edit in scare quotes. I made a series of minor adjustments; the only reason the edit looks extensive is that the displaced text shows up red. This isn't being bold. A rewrite would be bold. These were tweaks, and editors shouldn't have to check on talk pages before making grammatical adjustments or checking sources. This goes to the heart of the matter, namely that the impression is given that this page is off-limits. Duckecho has already been warned about it by another admin. 
Firstly, please read my post in Section 19 (here). Please acknowledge that you can see the following sentence, and understand it:
: Now, I completely and totally agree with SlimVirgin that that picture gives the misleading impression that more words were changed than was really the case, because of paragraph movements.
*You are a true gentleman and scholar for acknowledging and agreeing with your neighbor's plausible claims.--GordonWattsDotCom 13:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.Acknowledging at least that objections of fact have been raised so far, to many of your edits (see my posts in Sections 17, 17.1, 17.1.1, 17.1.2, 18, and 22)
*Even if SlimV misses one point I make, you might want to address it ...or not. It's all you.--GordonWattsDotCom 13:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: 2.Either accepting you have made errors of fact, or showing why you believe you haven’t by engaging the substance of the above arguments. 
*You have made many good suggestions as alternatives, and shown your brilliance, but on the point of factual inaccuracies, or whatever, ...NOT! ...whoops--GordonWattsDotCom 13:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Response to SlimVirgin: "copy edit"

message: "I'll let everyone know when I'm back online."
My 40-hour block has expired. I am back online. FuelWagon 14:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Block expired

message: Meant to use an anonymous IP on that last revert back to my edits.  Oh well... *sigh* --Uthar Wynn 01 03:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  F**K 

message: I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC