User talk:GordonWatts: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:34, 13 February 2007

Calton

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)[reply]

Hmm, a soul mate for you, Gordon, someone as equally clueless about Wikipedia policy.

And speaking of not knowing Wikipedia policy -- or simple directions, as seen at the top of Wikipedia talk:Village pump:

This page is for discussion about the village pump only. You may want one of the village pump subpages below, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.

--Calton | Talk 17:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is an arbitration between him and DeanHinnen on "Free Republic". Not sure what it is about. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, I've decided an even better route: To NOT fight at all, but rather to let the Lord fight my battle - I've made my case, and I trust God to let the chips fall where they may: I've followed the proper protocol on how to address this matter, and that, in and of itself, is a positive result.--GordonWatts 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise

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)[reply]

I must have made a typo: What I meant to say was that I have more expertise than them in the given area, since I have actually been involved in the case, whereas most of them have not. So, you have not addressed how all those other links are better than mine; I picked 3 links, and only 1 is an actual paper (The Akron link), and only 1 other have people who were involved with personal expertise (Terri's Fight), so where's your argument to keep them and boot my paper? How is my paper (or whatever you want to call it) worse than all 3 of those links?--GordonWatts 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:23, 13 February 2007 edit Calton (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 78,494 edits Your expertise ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:34, 13 February 2007 edit undo GordonWatts (talk \| contribs) 4,767 edits →Your expertise: my bad - typo Next edit →
Line 22:		Line 22:

	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. --[[User:Calton\|Calton]] \| [[User talk:Calton\|Talk]] 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)		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. --[[User:Calton\|Calton]] \| [[User talk:Calton\|Talk]] 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

			:I must have made a typo: What I meant to say was that I have more expertise than them in the given area, since I have actually been involved in the case, whereas most of them have not. So, you have not addressed how all those other links are better than mine; I picked 3 links, and only 1 is an actual paper (The Akron link), and only 1 other have people who were involved with personal expertise (Terri's Fight), so where's your argument to keep them and boot my paper? How is my paper (or whatever you want to call it) worse than all 3 of those links?--[[User:GordonWatts\|GordonWatts]] 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)