User talk:GordonWatts

You have new messages.

You have new messages.

---- - Welcome to my page: - ----

---

• Archives

1. Archive 1:The approximately 66 kb archive of my first talk page.

1. Archive 2:The 2nd archive of my first talk page is of unknown length, since the edit dialogue doesn't tell me the KB length, but it appears smaller than the 66 kb 1st archive.

Gordon Watts in business suit. Click on this photo to enlarge. Please see my main "User page" for more photos. WELCOME TO MY PAGE.

Welcome to my talk page

Please be aware that I may -or may not -check my page for messages. Email is an alternate, but not totally reliable, method of contact. Of course, more conventional methods of communication also exist, such as telephone calls, U.S. postal mail, visits, FAX transmissions, and the like. To my global neighbors, thank you for visiting, even if we have some disagreements on occasion. Take care,

--GordonWattsDotCom 11:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

For additional contact data, please see User:GordonWattsDotCom#Contact_Info.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

your comments on FuelWagon's talk page

You may want to tone down your rhetoric a little bit when dealing with FuelWagon - declaring your own edits as "unequivocably right" struck me as deliberately incendiary. Egging him on won't help you, since I'm tempted to protect Terri Schiavo now anyway and since admins get to exercise their own discretion on enforcing 3RR. - jredmond 00:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I answered you here. but reprinted it is:

In reply to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom&diff=20736285&oldid=20563690 "your comments on FuelWagon's talk page" - Thanks for your concern, Jredmond - I wasn't trying to egg on Wagon, but merely offer my support that his voice be heard, while striking a (balancing) tone to remind him (again after you commented) to be careful and avoid 3RR troubles. Please take note that I am open to listen to opposing feedback and give others credit when they have made good ideas. If the editors on that page can come to agreement, and I think that's near, then I would not want anyone blocked, because it would slow down their ability to offer input. Please also take note that I have tried to practice what I preach in attempting to fit in others' opinions and thoughts when editing.

I think that the Schiavo page (as well as most or ALL of Wikipedia.org) should be:

• 1) Permanently protected
• 2) Not edited unless editors actually go through a process like an editor applying for (say, for example) a New York Times web editor job -and have the editor post his mug and name online - and
• 3) Have us poor blokes paid for our work

However, that is just my opinion. In spite of our "unreliability" reputation, the Schiavo article is number THREE in the world in Google.com, even ahead of the CNN.com site -due in part to the "open" nature of it -the same thing that prompted my three-point complaint/suggestions above. Thanks again for your concern; If I were rich and didn't have to worry about money, I'm try to edit here more often, lol.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• PS: Things seemed to have calmed down and worked out OK.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

User-uploaded images.

Image:GordonWatts.jpg, Image:GordonEnhancedPicRally.jpg, and Image:GordonThen.JPG all are missing copyright information. It would be helpful if you could do so. If you have any questions, please feel free to visit my talk page. ral315 04:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your answer: Good news for you - Freebie -They are my images -No one can deny me use of my own images, I would hope -in other words, I don't hope someone would try to get a copyright and then later tell me I can't use my own photo; however and nonetheless,...: I apply the same permissions here as on my other pages - See e.g., http://geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/legal.html or http://gordon_watts.tripod.com/legal.html

REPRINT:

LEGAL NOTICE for The Register:

There are no trademarks, except where indicated. The Register gives permission to print out and copy any material from its site, with the one simple condition being that you give attribution, that is, say that it came from The Register, and give at least one --preferably more --link.

Additionally, FLORIDA STATUTES, Section 559.9335 (18) only prohibit promotion, advertising, or solicitation using a trademark, not private or educational use. US CODE TITLE 15, Chapter 22, (a)(1)(A) doesn't have a problem with nonprofit use such as this -- it only prohibits the use of others' trademarks in commerce type activities. Also, FLORIDA STATUTES, Section 1006.38 (10) and "> US CODE TITLE 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 allow use of copyrighted material for fair use. Moreover, the international Copyright Act, governing over 100 countries, allows "fair dealing," defined in the Act as copying works "for the purposes of private study, research criticism, review or newspaper summary". Don't forget the First Amendment, which protects: 1. Speech; 2. Press; 3. Assembly; 4. Redress; and, 5. Religion. Translation: it looks safe to copy anything for these purposes, but I disclaim being a lawyer.
--Gordon W. Watts, Editor-in-Chief

First of all, I don't want to use your pictures for anything; however, Wikipedia requires some basic licensing information for pictures. This is why I'm asking.

I am not a lawyer, and I cannot give you advice on this legality. However, the best way to put it is to say that all submissions to Wikipedia are automatically assumed released under the GFDL license, which may be compatible with the above that you posted. This means that the pictures you have uploaded must, at a minimum, be released under GFDL. If you do not agree to this license, you cannot edit Wikipedia, in theory. If you're looking for a legal interpretation of your license vs. GFDL, it's best to ask an admin, and they can help you. ral315 04:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: It's not necessarily considered OK for me to edit the images for you, since you're the copyright owner. What you need to do is, click each image in question, click the "Edit this page" tab, and somewhere in the textbox, type {{GFDL}} and then save the page. This will take care of everything. Thanks a lot. ral315 05:33, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Terry Schiavo

I was about to correct a link on this page, but saw that you were engaged in a major edit. Could you correct the link Anamnesis to Medical history? Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• I fixed it - hope it is correct.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

categories sorted

This is for better overview. --ThomasK 13:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

apology

Gordon, I'm sorry for biting your head off last night about the "in use" tag. I took a look at your edits this morning and it looks like you did some serious heavy lifting. I don't understand why the featured article status thing requires those types of references (I personally don't like having the text and the URL separated from each other), but if that's what's needed, then you brought the article a lot closer to getting FA. Two people who never worked on the article have now waltzed in, put in the "in use" tag, and basically damaged the article. So, I guess I'm a little sensitive whenever I see someone put that tag up. Anyway, good job on the references thing. FuelWagon 13:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. You are a bigger person than some I meet, to admit we all make mistakes. I agree that the format was fine the way before, but it does "look prettier" this way, where you have the full data in text form alongside a link, like showing the author, title, and date stuff. I haven't checked in tonight yet, but at least we are getting the "positive" attention of the great "wiki spirits," if you know what I mean.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Images on the Terri Schiavo article

While I did not file an objection over the images (just a comment), I wish to tell you what exactly Carnildo is looking for. One the first set of images he mentioned, he wants the editors/uploaders of the images to explain why we have to use this photo. If there is no "public domain" photo, then explain that. Also explain the copyright of the photo (taken by X, released by Y, Copyright foo-bar by Z group). That's it. If you find a photo which has been released under a free license (public domain, GFDL, CC). The second photo he talked about, Terri's grave, it can be replaced by another photo with a free license. What he means is that if a person who lives close to that cemetery can go out, take a photo of the grave and upload it under the GFDL license. That will replace the Fair Use photo. Basically, what Carnildo is trying to get at is that we should avoid fair use images as much as we can, but if we have to, we have to explain why. We are facing problems with fair use images, since people are abusing the process. I know you are not, but I am just explaining to you what is going on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, until you or others fix the objection, I will (and have) vote object to the article becoming a FA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote count is unecessary

Please note that FAC is more about building consensus than voting. Raul will discount all ridiculous objections, so you don't have to worry about that crazy objection by silverback, for instance. To get an FA, you have to convince Raul that all reasonable objections have been taken care of. Vote pretty much doesn't matter, even though the mark is technically 80%. My last FAC (Carl Friedrich Gauss) had a 7-0 vote, but Raul still refused to promote it untill I fixed an objection he thought was valid. (The guy who brought it up didn't even vote object; he just left a comment). I think Camildo's objection summarizes most that is wrong with the article. The prose isn't THAT good, and they may be more fair use images than necessary. Borisblue 18:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but since I contributed to much of the other sections of the article, I expect someone else to address the copyright issues. That's not my specialty. Maybe, I'll catch a second wind and look into it, but don;t count on me: Those who raise the objection are expected to be the first to solve the problem, hint, hint.

I saw this comment, and i want to note, if you want it to be featured then as nominator you will have to deal with it. This objection Raul cannot ignore. Surely you can send someone in florida out to the graveyard and take that photo? Borisblue 15:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo and World War I

Hi Gordon, I realize that an article on a person's life history is a bit different than one for WWI, but I figured that the WWI article (a featured article, BTW) might be a good example of how extremely complex subject matter can be comprehensive yet not overwhelming, through the use of a few (but not too many) sub-articles. FWIW, I thought everything through "Petition to Remove Feeding Tube" was very good and needs very few changes -- it's from "...Schiavo I" forward that I got lost. Also, since I'm here, I think the page numbers of the references you (or the collective you, since I'm not sure who did this) used belong where the other references are at the bottom - it's almost redundant as is since there are footnotes pointing to the source anyway, and it messes with the word flow. Good luck, I think it would be really cool to have it as an FA, and I hope to vote support in the near future. Have a good weekend. justsomechick·chat·stuff 19:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the "scroll bars" for both articles looked about the same, with Terri's scroll bar actually being a tad longer, hinting that her word count is less. Hold on a sec, whilst I ask Microsoft WOKKS Word processor for a word count.

• WWI is: 9493, not counting the “Wiki” text unrelated to the article WWI is 9652 total words on page. (There were 159 extra "wiki advertisement links, like the stuff on the top row and left column.)
• Terri Schiavo is: 10,978, not counting "wiki text" comments/links, etc., like above, and is 11,091, total. (There were 113 "non-Schiavo" words, as above.)

OK, good point, but all said and done, Terri's article is not even fifteen-percent (15%) larger. No big deal. Next concern...?

(Gordon's math notepad: 11,092 / 9,652 = 1.14908827186 = 114.9% = 14.9% increase < 15% increase = Good!) --GordonWattsDotCom 09:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• ADDITIONAL COMMENTS on Just Some Chick's POST:
• "through the use of a few (but not too many) sub-articles." Already covered. We have several sub-articles at present time. "FWIW, I thought everything through "Petition to Remove Feeding Tube" was very good and needs very few changes" A collective "Thank you" to you! "it's from "...Schiavo I" forward that I got lost." Sorry. It happens to the best of us, if we've been reading and get fatigue. "Also, since I'm here, I think the page numbers of the references you (or the collective you, since I'm not sure who did this) used belong where the other references are at the bottom - it's almost redundant as is since there are footnotes pointing to the source anyway, and it messes with the word flow." Well, I am the one who did that, and some feel that page numbers are needed at each juncture, so putting them at the bottom may be worse, since there are several sentences for each reference-note at the bottom, and each sentence may have a different page number -but that is just my opinion on the style used. I like it for how it "verifies" the page number too! "Good luck, I think it would be really cool to have it as an FA, and I hope to vote support in the near future." Thanks. "Have a good weekend." And you too and the other editors here as well.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

I started an RfC on Pope Pius XII. You are invited to comment. patsw 23:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No prob

The image looks fine now - thanks for the heads-up! -- RyanFreisling @ 05:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi, Gordon. Congratulations on taking and uploading those photos. I see you've added one to the article. I'm going to bed now, but will have another look in the morning. Thanks for taking the trouble. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Notes to Self

X	LARGE PDF's (Very clear, but too large)		"Smaller" PDF's (neither clear nor small file sizes, but I haven't figured out how to delete them from Wikipedia)		VERY small file sizes! -but still clear and high-quality Jay Peg's
File name	Off-line site	Wikipedia	Off-line site	Wikipedia	Off-line site	Wikipedia
BobbyWattsAutoPart	[1]	[2]	[3]	[4]	X	[5]
GordonAndMonteCarloInFrontOfWoodside	[6]	[7]	[8]	[9]	X	[10]
PhotoByGordonWayneWatts	[11]	[12]	[13]	[14]	X	[15]
PondInFrontOfSchiavoGrave	[16]	[17]	[18]	[19]	X	[20]
SchiavoGrave	[21]	[22]	[23]	[24]	X	[25]
SchiavoHeadstoneAndGrave	[26]	[27]	[28]	[29]	X	[30]
SchiavoHeadstoneBehindGordon	[31]	[32]	[33]	[34]	X	[35]
SylvanAbbey	X	X	X	X	[36]	[37]
SylvanAbbeyThroughChevyMonteCarloWindow	[38]	[39]	[40]	[41]	X	[42]
WalkwaySchiavoGrave	[43]	[44]	[45]	[46]	X	[47]
WoodsideHospice	[48]	[49]	[50]	[51]	X	[52]