User talk:Patsw: Difference between revisions

Discussion of Contributions of Patsw

patsw 01:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like your re-introduction of the Zogby poll, and I think you worded it fairly. But what's my opinion. There seems to be a lot of hostility here to that poll.

My position is that it is best to put the facts out there and let individual readers decide. I added the link to the raw poll report, and I don't think it is reasonable for anyone to quarrel with that.

I believe that the questions are indeed pertinent, and there is value in contrasting them with the questions of the ABC and CBS polls. Also, and very important, the Zogby poll was taken very late when there was increased public awareness. For example, the ABC poll begins by asking if respondents were paying close attention, and about half of them were not. Those people would not be expected to have informed opinions. By the time of the Zogby poll, attention was very high and there had been more time for people to hear about the controversial issues.

Tropix 06:10, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

User Pic

Hi! I found your user pic just now and, as part of the wikipedia image tagging project, I'm marking it as yours and listing that you release it into the public domain for copyright purposes. If this is at all inaccurate, please feel free to correct it. --InShaneee 03:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is my image and it is public domain. patsw 17:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi, Pat. Welcome aboard. Jdavidb 17:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PDF file

Thanks for your email. I was just able to download the file for the first time through Mozilla and I'm reading it at this moment. I don't know what the error was, but I think it had something to do with using an external download accelerator instead of just the browser. --Viriditas | Talk 03:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Francis Cardinal Spellman

I removed the dispute and dubious tags from the Cardinal Spellman article because I think your complaint had been taken care of. Please have a look at the article and comment on the Talk: page if you disagree. Remes 05:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's in the article now is fine. I made that edit when I had less experience than I have now. patsw 13:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My "irrelevant observation"

Well, you unfortunately continue to ignore the fact that at trial Michael's testimony was among the least considered; not as to credibility but as to the potential conflict of interest (shared by the Schindlers) raised by GAL Pearse. Most importantly, Michael's testimony was not remotely the only testimony—from the order, "The court took testimony from eighteen witnesses." I'm not implying that they all testified the same way. It merely proves that Greer didn't make his decision solely on Michael's say so. Moreover, that people (even millions of them) have doubts is even more irrelevant than my approval, and is most certainly irrational because they (nor I) were not at trial (and in most cases they haven't even read the orders) and did not have the advantage that Greer did, as the order states, "[t]he court has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor, hear inflections, note pregnant pauses, and in all manners assess credibility above and beyond the spoken or typed word." Duckecho 18:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The standard for the determination made by Greer was "clear and convincing".

I pulled this from a Newsday account from April 15, 2003

At that trial, Michael testified he and his wife talked about life support when Terri's grandmother was ill. "She said, 'If I ever have to be a burden to anybody, I don't want to live like that,'" he said.

He also testified the two watched a television documentary about people on life support. "She made the comment to me that she would never want to be like that," he said at the trial. Michael said he told Terri he felt the same way and has since written into his will instructions not to be kept on life support.

Michael's older brother, Scott Schiavo, and Michael's sister-in-law, Joan Schiavo, who is married to a different brother, also testified Terri made similar comments to them. Scott said he talked with Terri at a luncheon after a funeral for Scott's grandmother, who had spent weeks unconscious on a ventilator.

"Terri made mention at that conversation," Scott said, "that 'If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine.' Pretty much everybody at that table that was in the discussion had made the same comment."

The only testimony supporting Michael Schiavo's recall of Terri's wishes were Joan Schiavo and Scott Schiavo. Michael's recall (and the others' recall) of Terri's wishes came many years after her collapse -- all with an interest in seeing Michael prevail in the legal conflict with the Schindlers.

These wishes, if true, do not reflect "informed consent" and any contemplation of a condition not at the end of life -- not shortening natural life by 10, 20, or 30 years.

Unlike a rational state like New York where the decision to withdraw medical treatment must be dated, signed and witnessed, Florida permits a judge to determine this by "clear and convincing" evidence.

Then there is Diane Meyer's testimony which Greer found to not be credible -- first on Greer's error that Meyer got the year wrong when it turned out that Greer got the date wrong -- then when the error was pointed out to Greer, he declared that he was going to find Meyer's testimony not credible anyway. What would be Meyer's interest in lying?

Richard Pearse, one of Terri's guardians ad litem did not find the three Schiavo's 1998 recall of Terri's wishes from ten years prior to be "clear and convincing" especially given the conflict of interest in Michael inheriting Terri's part of the malpractice award.

If Terri had made the wishes that Michael recalled in 1998 in writing or to people without a financial interest in the outcome, I could accept it. Of course Greer doesn't answer to me, but to me and millions who have read the testimony, orders, and news accounts, Greer's determination of "clear and convincing" was wrong -- it was not "clear" and not "convincing" that Terri would choose to end her life by dying of thirst, 10, 20, 30 years ahead of its natural end. In fact, many people with living wills, and aware at the end, choose not to implement the death option. patsw 23:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

For your edification

cardiac arrest ≠ myocardial infarct
No need to thank me. Your enlightenment will be thanks enough. Duckecho 15:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I always knew the difference. The mystery is your concern for my knowlege of this. patsw 16:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because you keep trying to link the ME's finding of no evidence of myocardial infarct with the readily documented cardiac arrest that led to encephalytic anoxia in the initial medical crisis. The two (myocardial infarct and cardiac arrest) are not related. Please acknowledge that you understand there is no link and that you will refrain from trying to make one (which you have at least twice) and I won't bring it up again. Duckecho 16:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm back

Hi, Pat. I'm alive and well, but have been extremely busy. I have a backlog of unanswered messages to deal with, too, but I see from the Schiavo talk page that I need to get back quickly. Expect a few contributions from me in the next few hours. Ann Heneghan 16:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Update: I've just realized from your user page that you call yourself "Patrick". I assumed that it was "Pat" because of the "patsw" username. Ann Heneghan 17:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

It's Patrick in written form to provide gender disambiguation, otherwise it's Pat. patsw 18:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's Announcement

You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the Terry Schiavo article. Initial discussion is beginning at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation#It's time to deal with the bully. I ask for your support.--ghost 20:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Catholic

Hi, Patsw. Any additional thoughts on the page for Catholic? Really like to get that one worked out. Thanks & God bless... KHM03 12:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments from A ghost

Pat (may I call you Pat?). Would you mind chatting with me thru my Talk page, or email? You have some concerns that I noticed on the Talk pages of others, but...it seemed rude to jump into a "private" conversation. Anyway, I'm encouraging the other Terri Schiavo editors to "read for the enemy". I certainly don't view you as an enemy, but I do want to be able to better view the subject on your terms. Can you please help me?--ghost 5 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work'

• Generic Updates Message to other participants: I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The Slavery article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. "Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too. So, get on over to The Mediation Voting Center, and vote, for Gordon's sake: I have voted, and so can you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Polls

Thanks for the heads-up on the poll about insults. In return, I'll tell you about a somewhat similar matter. In the article about Ted Kennedy, some people want to insert material about the rape allegation against Kennedy's nephew. Kennedy himself wasn't charged with anything. His nephew was acquitted. I pointed out that the same reasoning would call for larding the George W. Bush article with material about his brother's financial malfeasance (and ban from working in the banking industry), his wife's having killed a teenager by running a stop sign, and his daughters being busted (and pleading no contest) for underage drinking. Some people are so keen to throw mud at Kennedy that they'll happily accept these inserts to the Bush article. I think all this crap should stay out. Including notable insults about the subject of an article is one thing, but this crowd wants to clutter a prominent person's article with negative stuff about the subject's relatives. It seems to me to involve many of the same evils that concerned you about the insults, in terms of maintaining Wikipedia's overall tone. If you want to chime in, it's at Talk:Ted Kennedy#Quickpoll (with a few dozen kilobytes of argument preceding it, if you're feeling really masochistic). JamesMLane 06:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Pat, your feedback is sought

Pat, I put you down for "1/2" a vote, as I recall, in the Schiavo talk page, regarding my claim of a slim concensus regarding mentioning euthanasia. Please come on over and formally weight in. Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 18:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not JUST a Catholic Editor

Not only do I like the fact that you're interested in removing anti-Catholic POV (I'm Catholic myself), I also enjoy the fact that you seem to try to remain as unbiased as possible WHILE removing it. Thanks for your work in trying to keep things as neutral as possible! Stanselmdoc 21:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for message

Hi, Pat. Thanks for your message. Will have a look at Village Pump. I'm a bit busy at the moment, as my brother is home from England with his family. Glad to see you're still appearing on the Schiavo talk page. Hope all is well with you. Regards. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha

Thanks for the advice, patsw. I'll keep that in mind. Clearly I get carried away sometimes, but I try to make sure that I ask if I can delete it beforehand. Thanks though. Stanselmdoc 21:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper

It appears that you had not previously encountered Famekeeper. He is, in my opinion, a very problematical editor, but that is only my opinion. He appears to be trying to present a theory to the effect that Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, and other Catholic leaders are guilty of complicity in the Holocaust for supporting the rise of Adolf Hitler. My own view is that some of those leaders made moral errors that are more obvious in hindsight than were obvious to them at the time in failing to recognize that Nazism was as dangerous as Communism, but at the same time they must be given the benefit of the doubt as to what they knew at the time. However, I will not try to present my analysis (which is that the situation was tragic and all choices were imperfect) at length here.

In any case, Famekeeper has a theory that I have seen nowhere else that Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, etc., "excommunicated themselves against their own souls", based on his interpretation of canon law, and that a canon law proceeding should be initiated against them now. After filling pages and pages of talk page space with that argument, that is what I told him to drop.

Famekeeper does not know how to summarize, and always goes on at length.

If you get sufficiently annoyed, you might want to visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. Then again, you might not.

I see that Famekeeper has not seen your user page. When he does, he will probably accuse you of being an agent of the Vatican trying to censor Wikipedia (as he has one other editor). Robert McClenon 11:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he has done that. I'm that one editor and I hope I do not draw his attention to this page.

I wanted to thank you for your message on my talk page. Yes, the Theology of B16 is a bit uneven. I was against its creation (this was done to slim down the main B16 article) and my attempt to reform it, as the first post on the talk page says, came to nothing, due to time constraints and pre-occupation with some other issue.

I also agree with what you posted on P12 regarding the use of talk pages. That in fact was my first and main conflict with FK. He's mostly harmless on the article pages but he uses the Talk pages for his "message.

Str1977 20:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick technical note, Pat: please post all your messages in the bottom section designated for this. It's easier for me to find the new message and I can do the pidgeon holing myself. Thanks for your cooperation. Str1977 22:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Patsw, the problem with FK is a mixture of both things: his belief in a vast catholic conspiracy and his editing inabilities. He himself said somewhere that he wrote as he thinks, which explains his style quite well. I guess he also jumps to conclusions when listening to stuff and then is "emotionally bound to his opinion" (quote from Dilbert's boss). This is my explanation for the whole conspiracy thing and also for his latest post on Jimbo's page (I mean: the CDU party is "the christian right"? Please!) Also, his complaint about a Ratzinger approach to abortion makes it obvious that he hasn't though the through the issues he posts about or rather that he hasn't managed to integrate all his opinions into a consistent stance. And we already knew his complete unability to see that Communism at one time was a threat.

But I agree with what you posted. Str1977 09:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Offensive article

Hi, Pat. Are you offended by this article and its talk page? This edit drew my attention to it. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It's offensive and it's indicative of the "one standard for Catholics and another standard for everyone else" that applies in the Wikipedia. patsw 23:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Venerable

I didn't add in "venerable" to the article. A policy decision was taken to no longer use styles in opening paragraphs but instead use style infoboxes. I simply transferred the style that was already there into the infobox. (Similarly, when policy was to keep styles and a band of users deleted them I reverted the deletions. I never added in the claim, simply stopped it being removed contrary to then policy.) I had nothing to do with adding the claim that he is a venerable in, simply a technical role vis-a-vis its location on the page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Pat, your voice is needed in re Schiavo Fac

Pat, I know that you have concerns about some of the "right-to-die" language on the Terri Schiavo page, but the good work of many editors (some of them quite strange -but still doing "teamwork") --the hard work of many editors' should be acknowledged and rewarded.

I would like you to come on over to the Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo page and weigh in on the issue. While actual vote count may (or may not?) be important in getting Terri Schiavo as a Featured Article Candidate (Fac), your voice would be helpful -and I hope you support the candacy.

Thx!--GordonWattsDotCom 09:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Cornwell in Pius intro

Sure, go ahead. Str1977 11:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

ths for your feedback + I've added mine...

Thx 4 your feedback on the Schiavo Featured Article candidate page.

Since you asked for my help, please see this here link, reprinted in the boc below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=22462844&oldid=22462041

My reasons for including that fact there is a debate in the introduction and excluding a specific mention of Cornwell's POV are given in the Talk:Pope Pius XII#Cornwell in the introduction so I am not going to repeat what I wrote there again. There's plenty of opportunity to go into the both sides of the debate in detail in the body of the article. patsw 22:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC) Pat, the introduction looks ok, in its current state, without mention of Cornwell. This sentence, "His leadership of the Church during the period of World War II is the subject of continued discussion, especially in light of his tenure as Papal Nuncio to Germany and later as Vatican Secretary of State," seems to indicate other points of view on the subject and leaves details for later. That's just my take, but the "who" of the other views is not so important as is the "what," and that is mentioned, so I think it's OK. That's just my view.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Responding to RFC: I'm inclined to agree with excluding this from the introduction. At most I would say that controversy exists, and go into it further down in the article. Anything other than a passing mention unbalances the introduction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

--GordonWattsDotCom 10:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

R. Giuliani

Hi, I dropped in to make sure you had no objections to the edits I suggested, since I saw no reply in that talk page. But noticing your statement here about Catholicism, I want to add that I hope you do not see that incident as a pro- and anti-Catholic issue. I certainly do not. 195.177.224.59 17:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign in. Haiduc 17:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I buy into the Wikipedia principle of first assuming good faith. The Museum incident is worth including because it is something that Rudy could have ignored entirely and chose not to. It gives an insight into something of a contradiction about him: on one hand he is pro-choice and admitted to infidelity but on the other hand, he picked this hill in on Empire Blvd. in Brooklyn to fight this battle. With the tweaks I thought it has become a good section which is why I restored it after it was blanked. patsw 17:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: Cornwell in Pius XII Introduction

I think the Request for Comment process failed to resolve this and more time is not going to help. What do people think of doing Request for Mediation? patsw 14:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me, that you're right. But maybe we should give him one more chance to resconsider.Str1977 18:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hostility on Talk:Terri Schiavo

well, lets get rid of all this bulimea speculation so we can report what really happened: Michael abused Terri and strangled her the night of her collapse. Fuel Wagon 18:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I won't be baited into a sarcastic reply to this. patsw 18:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hostility? no, that was not my intent. FuelWagon 19:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

in reply in re Schiavo's inherent wiki instability

From my page, you wrote, and I replied:"So, as I see the article and talk page now after some time elapsed, I see stuff that was negotiated in good faith during March through June was simply added back or removed during its multiple reorganizations. This "eating disorder" thing really bothers me: The autopsy did not find the characteristic scarring of the esophagus and stomach of bulimia. Yet Terri had an eating disorder so extreme that it killed her according to this speculation. Since FuelWagon has no response based on facts and reason, he baited me with the speculation that Terri was the victim of an assault by Michael. According to FW, it wasn't his intent to bait me, he's just got a unique way of showing the civility he demands from other editors. The "End of life" nonsense persists in the article as well because the court documents mistakenly referred to it. patsw 23:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)"

Don't mind Wagon's baiting -it's just his way of "saying hello," and expressing a point: He's "harmless," as far as that goes; nonetheless, due to the nature of "wiki," there is an inherent lack of stability, so past agreements and concensus are easily tossed, as if to imply it's OK to break past concensus, like one breaks the law.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of baiting is done in good faith. I think it is a pretext to drag down the level of discourse, suck you in, so that the finger can be wagged that you've engaged in ad hominems or a flame war. This gambit goes all the way back to BBS's at 1200 bps in the 1970's. I recognize these and nip them in the bud. patsw 23:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"BBS's at 1200 bps in the 1970's." Huh? What's that?--GordonWattsDotCom 00:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Before the Internet, there were dial-up lines operating at approximately 120 characters per second -- about 30 seconds to fill a 24 x 80 character screen -- to a Bulletin Board System like CompuServe or if one were fortunate to dialup TIP of the ARPANET patsw 03:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh my. They had nuts back then, didn't they?--GordonWattsDotCom 05:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

your Q about Wagon + come and vote, Pat.

From the files of my talk page is this copy and paste:

Gordon, has a question of weight that's arisen in the Terri Schiavo article ever been resolved contrary to Michael Schiavo's POV by Fuel Wagon? The first week or so editing there I noticed the utter predictability of the so-called neutrality advocates of the editing cabal. One didn't need to know much beyond whether it helped or hurt Michael's position in public opinion to know how they would decide any editing dispute. patsw 22:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon, has a question of weight that's arisen in the Terri Schiavo article ever been resolved contrary to Michael Schiavo's POV by Fuel Wagon?" Don't know, but Wagon sometimes bends and compromises & does what is right. Come and vote on our dispute.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

--GordonWattsDotCom 02:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

your help is needed @ Schiavo

your help is needed at:

Talk:Terri_Schiavo and also at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

both are time-sensitive issues; could you come and vote. Come and vote, please...?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Rick Santorum

I guess I don't quite understand what you were saying to me on my talk page. I've been reverting that stupid Savage "santorum" crap regularly, just on general principle, without reference to any particular policy; making up dirty words out of other people's names hardly warrants mention in an encyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"emplace"

(Rudy G. article) That's my term, I was trying to be accurate. Feel free to rephrase. Haiduc 01:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Pat, Please support my request for adminship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Pius XII

Concurr I do. Str1977 23:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your 2¢ sought: Much positive feedback for Schiavo FA-nom

Your 2¢ sought: The Terri Schiavo Featured Article nomination has made much progress and has received much positive feedback, including some from Mark (AKA →Raul654), the FA-editor: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo. As one of the esteemed editors in that vein, I'd like you to review the FA-nom and throw in your 2¢-worth. Thx.--GordonWatts 15:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Response

Pat, I'm not sure what else I can say beyond that I'm sorry you were offended. It was never my intent and I hope that you'll accept my regrets for inartful language. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As a gesture of good faith, I wanted to point you to a new category that you might be interested in. I know conservative editors often feel marginalized here, which is unfortunate; you should know that there are some efforts being made to combat that. You might have a visit with User:Paul Klenk, as well as User:Gator1 and/or User:Jdavidb, the latter two having just started [[Category:Conservative Wikipedians]]. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I didn't mean to seem uncivil. I was a bit upset about what I saw as you 'demanding I be specific now,' but perhaps I misread it. I am new to wikipedia, new to the rules, but your link to civility has been very instructive, and I just wanted to let you know that in no way did I mean to offend you. I still disagree with your use of facts, but I will promise to make a better effort to maintain a friendly discussion. (Bjorn Tipling 04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC))

Tony Sidaway RfC replied

I replied with my take on the events you mentioned up on that page. Thanks for letting me know, pat. Professor Ninja 07:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sacrament

Dear Pat, you posted on my talk page:

The Catholic Church teaches that in this sacrament the bread is no longer bread in substance, but retains the appearance of bread. It is not symbolically the Body of Christ, but is in reality the Body of Christ.

I agree completely. Both that the Church teaches this and that it is true. Maybe you have confused me with Proto, who brough up "bread" and "symbol" again. If you indeed meant me: I don't have a problem with appearance, but I think form is in line with Catholic teaching as well, as in "sub utraque forma". Regards, Str1977 11:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

FK Research

Dear Pat, Famekeeper's gone a while and I don't miss him. You were involved with him and have wondered about his language. Well, I asked a friend of mine, who's into computers and stuff, about his IP and he said, that FK posted from Dublin, Ireland. He also thought that his language as well as his insistence on being a native speaker of English remings of Indians (meaning from the subcontinent) he was talking about. This is also confirmed by some sections from FK's talk page: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]

I thought I might post this, in case you're interested. Str1977 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Charles Schumer

Actually, I did attempt to verify it, and found many blogs with much the same material, and one news source. While this does not meet my standards of corroboration, it may meet others'. It matters more to me and was the reason for my decision to roll back - not delete, as you say; one deletes a page or an image, which does require discussion and is more work to reverse - to reverse a rollback like this is relatively simple, especially if done immediately - the reason was that this edit

1. was not minor
2. was made with no citations at all.

If you on the other hand, wish to provide them and make properly cited, NPOV edits, I am not stopping you or in any position, in fact, to do so. Schissel : bowl listen 05:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

wikified the heading patsw 15:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Defining the conservative movement

Who wrote the op-ed piece that you quoted for the Rush Limbaugh article? Was it Rush? Gregmg 19:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Host desecration

Dear Pat, I was asked by Ann to do an overhaul of the article mentioned. I have done this and ask now you to take a look at it, as you were involved in discussing wording issues regarding the Eucharist. If you think my wording objectionable in any way, please tell me. Cheers, Str1977 22:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

list of sexually active popes

As you said, the discussion was getting off-topic. Your stated interests cause me to ask whether you can address the question being dispute. What happens if the cardinals elect a married layman to the papacy? Michael Hardy 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Pius XII

I understand your issues (I have had similar fights on other topics), and I hope that you see that I am not trying to vilify Pius XII, but merely explain what the controversy and complexities around his Papacy are about. Is there a way we can bring in some of the criticism without throwing the article to the dogs? My suggestions are to drop the "Jewish quotes" section, remove or qualify the Zolli story, add a paragraph or two describing the charges of Carroll and Willis and the others in some detail (with rebuttal from Dahlin, if you want), and remove the odd Syndney Zion quote, perhaps replacing it from the numbers from the sympathetic review of Pius XII and the Second World War: According to the Archives of the Vatican by Pierre Blet and Lawrence J. Johnson in The Journal of ReligionVol. 81, No. 1 (Jan., 2001(: "Vatican diplomatic initiatives mitigated the sufferings of tens of thousands of Jews, and delayed the sad fates of thousands more." --Goodoldpolonius2 03:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

On the Catholic Church of Wikipedia

As you have described yourself as a Catholic, I thought I would alert you as a co-religionist to your opportunity to delete the particularly offensive article, Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia.--Thomas Aquinas 21:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi Patsw. I notice you are quite active in promoting the Faith on this Wiki. I've been working on the new project, Wikikto (en.wikikto.org), a Catholic Wiki. If you'd be interested in lending a hand there, we'd be deeply grateful for your expertise and zeal. Thanks and God bless, Dpr 10:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A Message to Pro-Life Wikipedians

The section "Foetal Pain" (Fetal Pain) has been deleted from the Abortion article. Could you help restore it? If you would like to see what was deleted, go to my talk page, scroll to "Fetal Pain," and click the provided link.--Thomas Aquinas 22:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

re: September 11, 2001 attacks

Yah, I shouldn't have bothered to bait them. I call a spade a spade, plain and simple. There is nothing unencyclopedic about calling the hijackers terrorists as that description is indeed the best fit for their actions. I'm not going to get into any comparative arguments either such as bombing of Dresden is no better or worse than 9/11. As I quoted from the UN website, the term terrorism is related to a peacetime war crime, and a war crime also has a better, more agreed upon definition. If the U.S. is also guilty of atrocities, then they fall under the definition of war crime, not terrorism. I think we're on the same page, and a few others are also, albeit less actively. If it keeps up, I may draw up an RfC on the issue, but that tends to become a long arduous affair as you know. Nice meeting you.--MONGO 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you bandying about inaccurate figures of the 9/11 death toll? It is way above the offical toll - on this wikipedia article the death toll reads "The official count records 2,986 deaths" You have quote the right-wing Daily Telegraph with a figure of 4,537 people -max rspct 17:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Words to avoid

Good point; If I wanted to get philosophical about it, I would say we should work with the wiki to say something, rather than fight the wiki to keep certain things from being said. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I was actually more interested in restoring the titles, and the criteria they imply, than in the examples themselves. Different examples might be more useful. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I replied above before I read the latest edits at words to avoid. It's taken a direction I do not think is correct, turning the article into an extended admonition to not say terrorist. At this point, the article is way too much about terrorism and neutrality, to the point that it's turning into another article altogether. As it stands now we might do better to remove the examples. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

BC watch

Sophocles had BC/AD dates until 2 days ago when it was changed. After being banned I promised - I'm not sure who exactly, but I did and don't want to break it - that I wouldn't revert unless theres been some discussion on the matter. So if you would like you can add your opinion. Thank you, Chooserr

9/11

I just wanted to say I think you did a fine job with the latest version of the "Economic Aftermath" section. I said as much on the talk page, until someone mysteriously deleted my comments. Cheers. ~Sylvain 12/11/05

This type of censorship makes me sick

Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion

Hi, I see that you are listed as a Roman Catholic Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities I think this is an interesting and worth while category. Afterall not all celebrities are pro-abortion. Dwain 02:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Gay rights in Iraq

You listed yourself as Roman Catholic so I thought I might bring this unencyclopedic total POV pushing article to your attention. It is currently up for deletion here. Chooserr 04:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)