Thanks for uploading Image:MeleAffidavit.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PondInFrontOfSchiavoGrave.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. — Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GordonThen.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. — Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SylvanAbbeyThroughChevyMonteCarloWindow.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. — Fritz S. ( Talk) 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:WalkwaySchiavoGrave.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. — Fritz S. ( Talk) 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SchiavoHeadstoneAndGrave.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. — Fritz S. ( Talk) 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Gordon, I just wanted to ask for some clarification on your comment on Talk:James Kim. I certainly agree that what happened and when in regards to his death is important, but what do you feel calling it a timeline and bulleting it would provide something that the current section doesn't already James_Kim#Snowbound_with_family. The individual days are already longer than I think a timeline entry would be, so are you saying there should be a timeline section in addition to that section?-- Crossmr 16:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gordon, regarding your "Support" on this page, my comment to that was that the timeline is not part of the story, as you suggested, but rather it is an editor's after-the-fact formatting of the story. Since your basis for "Support" was the idea that the timeline was "part of the story," if you feel you were mistaken can you return to the page and change your vote? Thanks, Tragic romance 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Enough with your attempts to sneak in a "North Country Gazette" link. Apparently you feel being dishonest in a cause you believe is okay: it's not. After all, how good a cause can it be if it requires dishonesty on your part? Stop it. -- Calton | Talk 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
...to my user page, not my talk page here:
'but you are making a false accusation regarding that link
Wrong, period/full stop. That diff has your name on it. You did it. Don't lie. Take responsibility for your actions. Again, don't waste my time and insult my intelligence by cranking out long-winded excuses. -- Calton | Talk 21:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
{Note: End of quote from Calton's post-- GordonWatts 10:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)}
...to my talk page, as described here:
I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms
per
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/editcount_optin.cgi?user=GordonWatts&dbname=enwiki_p
which said:
If you are GordonWatts, this page will allow you to enable the display of the extra edit count information. If you would like to make this edit count information for your account visible, make a dummy edit * to User talk:GordonWatts, and copy and paste this as the edit summary:
I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms Then come back and reload this page to verify that everything worked. (it should work immediately)
Opting out To opt-out or have only specific features turned on, ping User talk:Interiot or Special:Emailuser/Interiot.
I was going to move my post down to the bottom, but then I saw that you posted just after it. You are right that one can look at the history to find the latest posts. Maybe that is the best way to do it....
You can delete this. I didnt want to fill up the talk page with this comment.. Martin | tk 04:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Mediplex seems to have vanished from the internet. I posted some old pictures of their sites in the talk page I believe. The first sites of them I saw were outpatient, and hardly "specializing in brain injury" as is sometimes claimed. One other site looks like an inpatient facility, but I am skeptical of the treatment that she received there. This site [1] has good info. Do you know what happened to Mediplex? Do you have Skype? Martin | tk 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence Terri Schiavo. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice" 1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Wikipedia:Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking 2. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you. -- Calton | Talk 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't give up just yet. There is two seperate conversations going on about Calton...one, a RfC here and another an arbitration here. Why not add your current situation with Calton to one or both of those. The more people who let their voices be heard the better the chance that Calton might get his tune changed. - SVRTVDude ( Yell - Toil) 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Gordon. I'd like to support you because I always find it painful to see a situation where everyone seems to be against one person. But I've looked at your links, and I do think you have a conflict of interest and that they don't fit in with all the WP:VER, WP:EL, WP:RS policies or guidelines that I have been reading. Also, I think it's a really bad idea to call someone else's edit "vandalism" in a content dispute. Vandalism is when someone changes the image of Pope Benedict to Michael Jackson, inserts dirty words into articles, blanks large sections, or deliberately inserts false information (like Adolf Hitler was born in 1482). It's not vandalism when someone removes a link on the grounds that it's not reliable, regardless of how long that link has been there. Please give up this fight, because I have a feeling it will get very painful for you if you don't. ElinorD 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
From your edit summary:
asking how my paper is any different than the many "johhny One Note" blogs and papers whose editors have no expertise in the given area - like me
Calling your Geocities website a "paper" is, of course, false in every meaning or synonym of the word, but the latter half of your summary is certainly true: you, as you admit, have have no expertise in the given area.
You'll also note that your attempt to make this about me instead of the inappropriateness of your edits isn't working, so perhaps you ought to drop it. -- Calton | Talk 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved your complaint at the Village Pump talk page to here (the complaint about Carlton and Schiavo related articles). Is this still a problem? If not please make a note at the link provided. Thank you.-- Kchase T 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Calton | Talk 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it will act like CPR and get Terri back to life.-- GordonWatts 07:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
In a recent dispute, I was voted down 6.0 to 2.5 (long explanation about the half a vote thing)
While I don't like losing the vote (the voting is used to mathematically determine the consensus, since no other logical means exists), nonetheless, I am mature and accept the outcome, but I got in the last word -right or wrong -on the matter (at least, it is the last word, as of this writing). Observe:
On both the page where the dispute broke out and here on the main talk page, I point out that many feel that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source and cite these argumentative editors as part of the reason. I could be wrong, but often times editors disagreeing with me will make generalized assumption (like Geocities or AOL or blog links are not reliable) -and not look at actual policy. Not all editors just babble; some of them make good points, and I concede I am wrong on a few points (such as my erroneous suggestion that Terri's Fight did not have special status when in fact policy does make exceptions to links from the actual participants).
OK, what I really don't like about this wiki is how many people often don't adhere to actual guidelines but sort of make up excuses for their edits; People making a case should use the actual policy as it is written to make your case; opinions don't count here.
I get in the last word on Schiavo link dispute: Many people don't consider Wikipedia itself reliable -so what was that again about those links not being reliable,...-- GordonWatts 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. It ought to be clear, by now, that consensus is pretty set against the inclusion of your websites as external links on the Terri Schiavo article(s). You are both very knowledgeable and very committed about the topic, and I do not want to see this effort wasted.
However, your current activity, repeating the same points over and over, is becoming disruptive, and it's starting to exhaust everyone's patience. I don't want to see this happen - can we accept that the links will stay out for now, and you aim your energies in a more productive direction?
There's a lot of effort being wasted by numerous editors continually stating 'no, the links should not go back in'; I'm aware Patsw believes they should be reinstated, but 2 in favour and 7+ against doesn't look good for the links.
Try and edit in a different for a little while. Instead of wasting all that splendid, intelligent, and ultimately fruitless effort on fighting over those links, go find an article on somethig that interets you that is not as good as it could be, and improve it. There's plenty of work that could be done on topics relating to Terri Schiavo (such as euthanasia, assisted death, right to life, etc) that could do with some referencing and expansion. You're great at asking for suggestions on talk pages about changes, but I have noticed you sometimes do ignore what others are saying and make your point over and over and over and over ... this tends to make people more implacable, not less.
I don't want this message to come across as patronising, I'm trying to nip this in the bud, because I think Wikipedia is a better place with people of your energy and willingness to do the legwork, but if things go on the current course, I see problems looming with RFCs, arb com and the like. Just think about it, ok? Best, Proto ► 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts -- Calton | Talk 13:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that there are alot of people out there defending you and strongly opposing Calton's request for a community ban against you and you are winning 8 to 2. Hang in there, don't even go near a Terry Schiavo related page, let the smoke blow over and it will all turn out for the good. Hang in there dude, people are in your corner on this community ban thing. - SVRTVDude ( Yell - Toil) 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at some of the talk pages where some controversy has erupted, I have some ideas on what may help resolve the dispute. First, stop trying to promote yourself as an expert here on Wikipedia -it's irrelevant. There's a whole internet out there you can do this on, just keep it off Wikipedia. Also, you say you're not editing Schiavo-related pages, but you're still arguing on their talk pages. Why? Wouldn't it be better to just drop it? The alleged conflict of interest is a very serious issue. If there's ample evidence that you're here to promote yourself and your own opinions rather than being here to produce a neutral encyclopedia, the ban becomes a very real possibility. If you're here for the good of the project rather than for self-promotion and soapboxing, you need to start working much harder to demonstrate this. Friday (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Gordon, it seems to me that some people are trying to help you at the community noticeboard, and you're making it difficult for them by giving long answers to show how (in your view) they're wrong. Could I ask you to stop responding. You seem not to realise that every time that you post a long answer, you come across as argumentative. That seems to have been a big problem with your RfA, to which Calton directed me. It seems a very bad idea to respond to each and every piece of criticism, and you seemed deaf to the people who were pointing out that you were making matters worse. I respect what you tried to do for Terri Schiavo (though I'm afraid you lose some of that respect by telling people about it at almost every opportunity, and by constantly claiming that you did better than Governor Bush), but those links are not going to go into the article, so there's no point in fighting that battle any more. If you keep arguing, you'll increase the likelihood of being banned. I don't want to see that happen. You show no sign of ill will, and I think you've been treated very rudely by some people. But it is a problem that you either can't or won't refrain from doing things once you see evidence that they annoy people, whether it's calling Calton Cal, writing your posts in different colours (which takes up more space in the edit box, and which seems as if you want to draw attention to yourself more than other people do), or responding to every single argument. Please. The best possible sign you could give of being willing to change this would be to archive this message without first posting a long rebuttal of my points. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong; it matters if you show that you're not prepared ever to let someone else have the last word. If I offend you with this message, I'm sorry. I do mean it kindly, and I hope you won't be banned. ElinorD (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't what it is about you two, but just stop it. I've already asked Calton not to call you names or engage in provocation. However, calling him 'long-winded and non-stop' and holding up his RfC as some sort of evidence that he is more troublesome than you is utterly ridiculous. If you're not prepared to comment on his (or anyone else's) remarks civilly, then bite your tongue.
Any one of several editors – myself included – could file an RfC on your conduct in the blink of an eye. We were hoping to deal with your behaviour less formally and more rapidly through other means.
Unless you stop trying to 'win' arguments and start listening to what other people are telling you, you're going to find yourself banned in short order. You're doing to yourself now exactly what you did on your RfA. Getting the last word doesn't mean you've won; providing the longest argument doesn't mean you're the smartest; repeating your arguements with more bold type doesn mean that people will be more likely to agree with you the second or third time around.
The chief problem with your behaviour was not the minor issue of including links to your own webpages (though you do have a conflict of interest there with respect to evaluating the quality and reliability of them as a source.) The problem is your subsequent style of argument. The people who you encounter on Wikipedia are generally both intelligent and – by the time you hit any noticeboards – well-versed in Wikipedia policy. You don't need to quote chapter and verse at length or repeat it ad nauseam. You need to state your case once, clearly, and step back and listen to the feedback you're getting. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:No original research. Since this is an encyclopedia, editors must use sources, not be the source. Phone calls you've had are irrelevant here. Keep in mind that talk page discussion should conform to our core content policies- original research isn't appropriate on talk pages. Friday (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MeleAffidavit.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PondInFrontOfSchiavoGrave.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. — Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GordonThen.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. — Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SylvanAbbeyThroughChevyMonteCarloWindow.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. — Fritz S. ( Talk) 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:WalkwaySchiavoGrave.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. — Fritz S. ( Talk) 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SchiavoHeadstoneAndGrave.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. — Fritz S. ( Talk) 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Gordon, I just wanted to ask for some clarification on your comment on Talk:James Kim. I certainly agree that what happened and when in regards to his death is important, but what do you feel calling it a timeline and bulleting it would provide something that the current section doesn't already James_Kim#Snowbound_with_family. The individual days are already longer than I think a timeline entry would be, so are you saying there should be a timeline section in addition to that section?-- Crossmr 16:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gordon, regarding your "Support" on this page, my comment to that was that the timeline is not part of the story, as you suggested, but rather it is an editor's after-the-fact formatting of the story. Since your basis for "Support" was the idea that the timeline was "part of the story," if you feel you were mistaken can you return to the page and change your vote? Thanks, Tragic romance 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Enough with your attempts to sneak in a "North Country Gazette" link. Apparently you feel being dishonest in a cause you believe is okay: it's not. After all, how good a cause can it be if it requires dishonesty on your part? Stop it. -- Calton | Talk 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
...to my user page, not my talk page here:
'but you are making a false accusation regarding that link
Wrong, period/full stop. That diff has your name on it. You did it. Don't lie. Take responsibility for your actions. Again, don't waste my time and insult my intelligence by cranking out long-winded excuses. -- Calton | Talk 21:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
{Note: End of quote from Calton's post-- GordonWatts 10:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)}
...to my talk page, as described here:
I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms
per
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/editcount_optin.cgi?user=GordonWatts&dbname=enwiki_p
which said:
If you are GordonWatts, this page will allow you to enable the display of the extra edit count information. If you would like to make this edit count information for your account visible, make a dummy edit * to User talk:GordonWatts, and copy and paste this as the edit summary:
I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms Then come back and reload this page to verify that everything worked. (it should work immediately)
Opting out To opt-out or have only specific features turned on, ping User talk:Interiot or Special:Emailuser/Interiot.
I was going to move my post down to the bottom, but then I saw that you posted just after it. You are right that one can look at the history to find the latest posts. Maybe that is the best way to do it....
You can delete this. I didnt want to fill up the talk page with this comment.. Martin | tk 04:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Mediplex seems to have vanished from the internet. I posted some old pictures of their sites in the talk page I believe. The first sites of them I saw were outpatient, and hardly "specializing in brain injury" as is sometimes claimed. One other site looks like an inpatient facility, but I am skeptical of the treatment that she received there. This site [1] has good info. Do you know what happened to Mediplex? Do you have Skype? Martin | tk 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence Terri Schiavo. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice" 1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Wikipedia:Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking 2. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you. -- Calton | Talk 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't give up just yet. There is two seperate conversations going on about Calton...one, a RfC here and another an arbitration here. Why not add your current situation with Calton to one or both of those. The more people who let their voices be heard the better the chance that Calton might get his tune changed. - SVRTVDude ( Yell - Toil) 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Gordon. I'd like to support you because I always find it painful to see a situation where everyone seems to be against one person. But I've looked at your links, and I do think you have a conflict of interest and that they don't fit in with all the WP:VER, WP:EL, WP:RS policies or guidelines that I have been reading. Also, I think it's a really bad idea to call someone else's edit "vandalism" in a content dispute. Vandalism is when someone changes the image of Pope Benedict to Michael Jackson, inserts dirty words into articles, blanks large sections, or deliberately inserts false information (like Adolf Hitler was born in 1482). It's not vandalism when someone removes a link on the grounds that it's not reliable, regardless of how long that link has been there. Please give up this fight, because I have a feeling it will get very painful for you if you don't. ElinorD 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
From your edit summary:
asking how my paper is any different than the many "johhny One Note" blogs and papers whose editors have no expertise in the given area - like me
Calling your Geocities website a "paper" is, of course, false in every meaning or synonym of the word, but the latter half of your summary is certainly true: you, as you admit, have have no expertise in the given area.
You'll also note that your attempt to make this about me instead of the inappropriateness of your edits isn't working, so perhaps you ought to drop it. -- Calton | Talk 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved your complaint at the Village Pump talk page to here (the complaint about Carlton and Schiavo related articles). Is this still a problem? If not please make a note at the link provided. Thank you.-- Kchase T 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Calton | Talk 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it will act like CPR and get Terri back to life.-- GordonWatts 07:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
In a recent dispute, I was voted down 6.0 to 2.5 (long explanation about the half a vote thing)
While I don't like losing the vote (the voting is used to mathematically determine the consensus, since no other logical means exists), nonetheless, I am mature and accept the outcome, but I got in the last word -right or wrong -on the matter (at least, it is the last word, as of this writing). Observe:
On both the page where the dispute broke out and here on the main talk page, I point out that many feel that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source and cite these argumentative editors as part of the reason. I could be wrong, but often times editors disagreeing with me will make generalized assumption (like Geocities or AOL or blog links are not reliable) -and not look at actual policy. Not all editors just babble; some of them make good points, and I concede I am wrong on a few points (such as my erroneous suggestion that Terri's Fight did not have special status when in fact policy does make exceptions to links from the actual participants).
OK, what I really don't like about this wiki is how many people often don't adhere to actual guidelines but sort of make up excuses for their edits; People making a case should use the actual policy as it is written to make your case; opinions don't count here.
I get in the last word on Schiavo link dispute: Many people don't consider Wikipedia itself reliable -so what was that again about those links not being reliable,...-- GordonWatts 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. It ought to be clear, by now, that consensus is pretty set against the inclusion of your websites as external links on the Terri Schiavo article(s). You are both very knowledgeable and very committed about the topic, and I do not want to see this effort wasted.
However, your current activity, repeating the same points over and over, is becoming disruptive, and it's starting to exhaust everyone's patience. I don't want to see this happen - can we accept that the links will stay out for now, and you aim your energies in a more productive direction?
There's a lot of effort being wasted by numerous editors continually stating 'no, the links should not go back in'; I'm aware Patsw believes they should be reinstated, but 2 in favour and 7+ against doesn't look good for the links.
Try and edit in a different for a little while. Instead of wasting all that splendid, intelligent, and ultimately fruitless effort on fighting over those links, go find an article on somethig that interets you that is not as good as it could be, and improve it. There's plenty of work that could be done on topics relating to Terri Schiavo (such as euthanasia, assisted death, right to life, etc) that could do with some referencing and expansion. You're great at asking for suggestions on talk pages about changes, but I have noticed you sometimes do ignore what others are saying and make your point over and over and over and over ... this tends to make people more implacable, not less.
I don't want this message to come across as patronising, I'm trying to nip this in the bud, because I think Wikipedia is a better place with people of your energy and willingness to do the legwork, but if things go on the current course, I see problems looming with RFCs, arb com and the like. Just think about it, ok? Best, Proto ► 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts -- Calton | Talk 13:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that there are alot of people out there defending you and strongly opposing Calton's request for a community ban against you and you are winning 8 to 2. Hang in there, don't even go near a Terry Schiavo related page, let the smoke blow over and it will all turn out for the good. Hang in there dude, people are in your corner on this community ban thing. - SVRTVDude ( Yell - Toil) 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at some of the talk pages where some controversy has erupted, I have some ideas on what may help resolve the dispute. First, stop trying to promote yourself as an expert here on Wikipedia -it's irrelevant. There's a whole internet out there you can do this on, just keep it off Wikipedia. Also, you say you're not editing Schiavo-related pages, but you're still arguing on their talk pages. Why? Wouldn't it be better to just drop it? The alleged conflict of interest is a very serious issue. If there's ample evidence that you're here to promote yourself and your own opinions rather than being here to produce a neutral encyclopedia, the ban becomes a very real possibility. If you're here for the good of the project rather than for self-promotion and soapboxing, you need to start working much harder to demonstrate this. Friday (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Gordon, it seems to me that some people are trying to help you at the community noticeboard, and you're making it difficult for them by giving long answers to show how (in your view) they're wrong. Could I ask you to stop responding. You seem not to realise that every time that you post a long answer, you come across as argumentative. That seems to have been a big problem with your RfA, to which Calton directed me. It seems a very bad idea to respond to each and every piece of criticism, and you seemed deaf to the people who were pointing out that you were making matters worse. I respect what you tried to do for Terri Schiavo (though I'm afraid you lose some of that respect by telling people about it at almost every opportunity, and by constantly claiming that you did better than Governor Bush), but those links are not going to go into the article, so there's no point in fighting that battle any more. If you keep arguing, you'll increase the likelihood of being banned. I don't want to see that happen. You show no sign of ill will, and I think you've been treated very rudely by some people. But it is a problem that you either can't or won't refrain from doing things once you see evidence that they annoy people, whether it's calling Calton Cal, writing your posts in different colours (which takes up more space in the edit box, and which seems as if you want to draw attention to yourself more than other people do), or responding to every single argument. Please. The best possible sign you could give of being willing to change this would be to archive this message without first posting a long rebuttal of my points. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong; it matters if you show that you're not prepared ever to let someone else have the last word. If I offend you with this message, I'm sorry. I do mean it kindly, and I hope you won't be banned. ElinorD (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't what it is about you two, but just stop it. I've already asked Calton not to call you names or engage in provocation. However, calling him 'long-winded and non-stop' and holding up his RfC as some sort of evidence that he is more troublesome than you is utterly ridiculous. If you're not prepared to comment on his (or anyone else's) remarks civilly, then bite your tongue.
Any one of several editors – myself included – could file an RfC on your conduct in the blink of an eye. We were hoping to deal with your behaviour less formally and more rapidly through other means.
Unless you stop trying to 'win' arguments and start listening to what other people are telling you, you're going to find yourself banned in short order. You're doing to yourself now exactly what you did on your RfA. Getting the last word doesn't mean you've won; providing the longest argument doesn't mean you're the smartest; repeating your arguements with more bold type doesn mean that people will be more likely to agree with you the second or third time around.
The chief problem with your behaviour was not the minor issue of including links to your own webpages (though you do have a conflict of interest there with respect to evaluating the quality and reliability of them as a source.) The problem is your subsequent style of argument. The people who you encounter on Wikipedia are generally both intelligent and – by the time you hit any noticeboards – well-versed in Wikipedia policy. You don't need to quote chapter and verse at length or repeat it ad nauseam. You need to state your case once, clearly, and step back and listen to the feedback you're getting. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:No original research. Since this is an encyclopedia, editors must use sources, not be the source. Phone calls you've had are irrelevant here. Keep in mind that talk page discussion should conform to our core content policies- original research isn't appropriate on talk pages. Friday (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)