User talk:KihOshk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Please stop reverting

Please stop reverting when you do not know what is going on. For one thing, with Gfwesq and I, it would be a consensus over the other author. Secondly, the list is not properly sourced. Thirdly, the author is a decent sort and we are discussing this amiably. If you would look at his talk page, you would see this. I would appreicate it if you would not create a war where there is none. jgwlaw 02:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being polite. Why would you assume that I don’t know what’s going on?

• Firstly, Jgwlaw, you and Gfwesq do not make a consensus; my educated opinion counts here as well. Will you refute that you made disputed changes to Dali’s work only minutes after the author’s update? As Gfwesq points out; Dali is quite capable of speaking for himself. Why not show him the respect of leaving his work unmolested until this dispute is settled? Gfwesq, are you paying attention? I cited you.

And I discussed it on his talk page, but he hasn't yet responded. Please see below. He didn't leave my work unmolested. However, I trust that he will discuss it with me shortly. jgwlaw 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Secondly, if it is your contention that only properly sourced material will be permitted here; you appear to me to be filibustering; I am presently a novice at Wikipedia, but I expect that there is a regulation regarding that type of disruptive activity. Every one of Dali’s talking points is referenced to other sources. This list is of common points of those who advocate tort reform. May I ask which of these bullet-points you refute? I have read the arguments for including pro and con opinions on each bullet-point, this is in dispute, therefore I believe the very clear and concise list should remain until the dispute is settled.

No, the 'laundry list' is not referenced. Many of his points are. He is a good writer. It is not just the list - it is the context of the structure of the article, and how it is introduced. And if you are going to talk about 'consensus', yours is after-the-fact, and now it is 2-2. So please don't keep reverting. jgwlaw 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thirdly, are you advising me that I must now review authors’ talk-pages in addition to the discussion-page of the articles I feel like commenting on?

Of course not,. It was a suggestion. jgwlaw 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This sounds to me like some odd form of projected filibustering. I would suggest to anyone to keep whatever commentary they feel is important to the articles in question on the the articles’ discussion pages. If individual authors discuss the matter on their private pages, it is their responsibility to transfer any pertinent discussion; to expect contributors to hunt and peck is ludicrous. That you’re having amicable relations with this author has nothing to do with my opinion on this matter. As for your appreciating that I not start a “war”; would you please elaborate? I have done nothing to start one; I am contributing in good faith. Are you threatening me that you will start one, Jgwlaw? ‘’I’’ certainly do not intend on starting one.

Thank you.

No, I am not threatening a war. I have bent over backwards to not engage in one. As has Dali. And that was my point. jgwlaw 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, good. May I please ask that we keep our discussions of this article in its discussion-page? Thanks. --KihOshk 04:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention to detail. Dali is quite capable of speaking for himself. We have all agreed to discuss things first before making edits. Dali concurred. Gfwesq 02:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Gfwesq, I will thank you to show some decorum and not to command me to "Pay attention to detail.". I assure you that I am quite capable for speaking for myelf as well. If you had paid more attention, you would have noticed that Dali had made edits to this disputed section minutes before Jgwlaw deconstructed his work without consent.

STOP. This is not productive. We have gone back and forth on this, and I did not just 'deconstruct' his work. That's ridiculous. jgwlaw 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As for any agreement to discuss changes before they are made; I have paid enough attention to this article and its discussion to recognize a pattern of what consider steamrolling on both your and Jgwlaw's parts. I think that your implication that only the author or editor may defend themselves if their work is changed is laughable.

Then you haven't seen much of controversial articles on WIkipedia. Also, we discussed this on the talk page.jgwlaw 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your claim that all have agreed to discuss changes before they are made: I merely reverted an edit that Jgwlaw made without agreement;

Dali and I had previously agreed to some sort of paragraph, for now, and were still discussing how to organize the article. Then Dali's changed it, without our discussing it. THAT was without agreement; I was reverting back. I also am quite sure that Dali and I and Gfwesq can discuss it amicably and arrive at a way to organize it so there is a summary (maybe even bullet points) adn then a discussion. However, right now it is badly organized with the bullet points, and then a discussion that does not relate.

the author of the piece in question clearly states in the discussion that he or she believed that this format was appropriate, as do I; here is the last entry in the discussion by the author (previous comment included for context):

Dali, I think you are right. I found that there is an entry for "asshole". So if anything goes, then I suppose this does too.jgwlaw 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I think!?! Anyway, I've reconsidered the structure of the "laundry list" - I think it's informational, reads better, and is impossible to refute by either side of the debate.--HelloDali 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken; Dali did not concur. Please pay attention in the future.

Thank you too.

If your read the discussion, Dali had initially agreed to not 'bullet pointing' it, then changed his mind and added the bullet point without our discussing it, as we had been. Also, Dali and I have been collaborating amicably. We will work out how to organize this, because we are both willing to discuss these issues. My concern is not just the points, but the points in context with the structure of the article (please see his talk page). Let's not get into a spat about this, please. We will find a way to work this out, and figure out what points to add and how. Dali and I have dealt already with rabid POV disrupters, and I don't think either he nor I want to see that in the future.jgwlaw 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that you are very much a novice at Wikipedia. Blasting is not a way to collaborate, especially when you had not been joining in the discussion. I don't know who you are, but you are begnning to remind me of someone else on the page, who did nothing but attempt to inflame. I hope that I am wrong. So if I am, let's please try to work together and discuss a clearly contentious article.jgwlaw 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I am novice, but I haven't been "blasting", as you say. I can assure you that I am not attempting to inflame; why are you taking this so personally? I am honesty trying to adhere to facts and reliable information; I'd like to keep emotion out of this. I must point out to you your own rhetoric can have a tendency to inflame: I admitted I was a novice, yet you decided to use a superlative to remind me. That's a sign of your emotionality as far I can discern. By the way, I think I know the guy you're talking about...that is I read his stuff…the one with the fish, right? I think you and G should know that his intentions, as far as I could tell, were to make others laugh. I'm actually flattered you'd compare me to him because he struck me if not as a serious debater, though I thought his points infallible, but an extraordinarily intelligent person. Seriously, I know that might get your feathers ruffled, but that guy was playing with you both, and he was doing an expert job until G inadvertently made fun of his dead mother and he sadly disappeared. I apologize, I don't mean to sound judgmental, but you and G fell right into his trap; he baited you, you both got emotional (if you would review his posts with a clear head, I'm sure you'd agree he did NOT get emotional, as G claimed) and he preceded to produce some very seriously funny vignettes, he had me howling. Now, I think you and I would agree that this is no place for that kind of banter, but I certainly enjoyed it. I was disappointed that he didn’t have an account, I would have liked to have read some of his other pranks. Please don’t take his input or my finding humor in it personally, it could have been anyone; I’m just glad it wasn’t me. --KihOshk 06:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually KihOSH, I am well aware of the sequence of events. I am also aware of our agreement to not edit changes without discussing them first. Which Dali broke. It was his rule BTW. I am not blasting him for it. It could be that jgwlaw placed a note on Dali's page to get his attention promptly. You assume a lot without a complete knowledge of the facts. It will get you in trouble someday. Dali has been quite enjoyable to work with since we agreed to colloborate. I don't know what you mean by steamrolling, unless you mean I am not shrinking violet. Which is true. Dali is a journalist. He is not an expert in law. And if I see a blatant error, I will comment on it. For example, Dali repeated some other blithering idiot on the need to reform the law of evidence to allow to allow evidence that a plaintiff in a car crash case was not wearing a seatbelt. You probably would agree with that "reform". The problem is IT IS ALREADY THE LAW. Has been for just about forever. Its called comparative negligence and it is an outgrowth contributory negligence. These are called defenses and a defendant is allowed to defend by introducing that type of evidence. Whoever originally wrote it was talking out of their butt. Dali, was big enough to concede that point. I have a big problem with that sort of misinformation as to what is or is not the law being in the article or any other article. And if it takes what you call steamrolling to make it accurate, you bet your life I will state my position forcefully. Your educated opinion may be informed as to engineering issues, but it takes back seat to my 20 years experience and knowledge of law. If, in the unlikely event, I presume to make statements that I feel are my educated opinion on engineering issuses, but you know my statements are dead wrong feel free to steamroll me. BTW, FWIW Jgwlaw was an engineer for 15 years before becoming a lawyer. I generally defer questions on engineering to Jgwlaw for that very reason.Gfwesq 04:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Gfwesq, you say that I have made a lot of assumptions without complete knowledge of the facts that WILL get me in trouble someday? Will you please elaborate? Are you planning on suing me? What are you talking about? As for your agreements; I am not a party to them, though this does not mean I am not willing to discuss, and perhaps concede to them. You can certainly create agreements with someone, but don't expect others to adhere to them; this MAY get you in trouble someday. If you expect me to delve into the minutiae of your agreements with HelloDali, well, stop doing it right now. I can only promise you that I will be reasonable, and I plan to back up my actions with reasons.

I am happy for both of you that Dali has been enjoyable to collaborate with. That's nice.

By "steamrolling", I mean instances where I perceived emotional outbursts when addressing others whose opinions differ from yours. I will compile a list tomorrow if you wish.

You say Dali quoted "some other blithering idiot". Are you implying that Dali an idiot? Are you implying I am? Actually, this statement would make that list I was talking about. Why must you use such emotional and disparaging language? To me, it's as if you believe you're the arbiter of all that's right or wrong; it's pretty creepy. You won’t win me over in an argument by calling me an idiot; check out Socratic Method.

And this blithering of your own about some "car crash case"; I'm at a loss as to what you're trying to communicate to me. Thank you for demonstrating your knee-jerk habit, by the way. First, your sentences about this case explain nothing coherent, and then you tell me what my opinion on it is; that's REALLY creepy. Now, in all seriousness, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't be so prejudicial towards me; you have no idea what my opinion might be, please don't assume. If you really would like to know my opinion on the matter, please provide me with a link to the facts. As for anyone talking out of their butts, I suggest you avoid them; I steer clear of them myself. And don’t you worry about me betting my life on anything you do.

Now, here’s where you and I may have a HUGE problem. My contributions to this article will NOT take a “back-seat” to yours merely because you’re a lawyer; get this idea out of your head right now. I promise I will respect your considered and emotion-free input, but you will not monopolize this article, I can assure you of that. Your implication seems to boil-down to “I’m an attorney, and you’re not, so shut-up and go away”.

Now, I apologize for thinking you don’t read everything; you DID catch that little blurb that I was an engineer. Yes, and a programmer too. The only problem between both of these professions and practicing law is that, for all intents and purposes, engineering and programming are regulated by the unchanging laws of physics and logic; human law is fluid and completely open for interpretation. Also, since laws affect us all, I believe we all have the right to express our opinions on the subject in any way we please. Granted, the laws themselves are enforced on consensus; they can and do change depending on societal trends. This is not the case, generally, in my professions. Still, I would NEVER presume to be close-minded enough not to consider the input of any well-meaning layman; I may have just looked over something very important in my self-righteousness. I don’t doubt you’re an expert in your field, but please try to keep your ears and eyes open to others; you may be seriously wrong sometimes.

Jgwlaw’s an engineer AND a lawyer?!? I am truly impressed! I’d better watch myself. --KihOshk 06:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am an electrical engineer and a lawyer. What Gfwesq was trying to explain was that there is a lot of misinformation on Wikipedia. He was trying to give you an example of this, which you may not have understood. That does not mean he was 'creepy'. If an expert in an area did not correct a clearly wrong statement in the field, and be insistent about it, he would not be serving the good of Wikipedia. One may have an opinion on a subject, but if it is flatly wrong, then it should be corrected. Law is not so 'fluid' that there are no rules (whether they be statute, constitutional law, treaty or common law). Similarly, engineering and logic are not always as concrete as some, including engineers, would believe. There was no steamrolling, after we all agreed to work together. It had been enjoyable, until this evening, in fact.

I suggest that we all stop arguing - which is all this is. The article on tort reform was badly organized because there had been a million and one edits. Your continual reversions did accomplish one thing - it helped me realize how the intro should look - that is, without any of the individual proposals, since they belong in a separate section which is where they are now. There was a disjointedness to the article. And, it looked POV to have the list in an introduction, when the introduction was more general, and then discussed philosophies...Look, it is 2:30 AM and I have no idea why I am still up. Let's put this behind us, and try to collaborate. It is human to become angry when insulted, and there was plenty of that to go around here tonight. When the environment becomes this tense it is a good idea to sit back and take a deep breath. I completely disagree with Dali's opinions on tort law and 'reform', but he has been a pleasure to work with. He is strong willed, as it looks like we all are. So let's see if we can make this a pleasant experience, and not a way to raise blood pressure.jgwlaw 06:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Revert Rule Warning/ Explanation/ Common Understanding/Start Over/ etc.

Please review this page WP:3RR. Afterwards you will see what jgwlaw meant by telling you you were violating the three revert rule. and could be banned. It is part of the Wiki rules,. Violation of the rule has been known to get people banned temporairly, though I suppose there may be a case where someone was banned as permanetly as Wikipedia can. I believe the rule states that admin's will not ban newbies unless they have have been shown this page. In fairness, I should point out under the rule, you are now without the newbie protection and are bannable. This is intended to be a polite, mild and gentle warning.

Don't bother compiling a list for me as you put it. First off, you will find, when I have not been baited, I can be quite civil. On the other hand, if attacked, I have been known to bite back and I believe in the Powell doctrine (overwhelming force). I have been around office politics in large corporations and big firms and I know the implications of charging someone with being emotional, whether you have that experience or not, whether you intended that implication or not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Next read some of your own statements and reflect upon your own behavior. I'll give two examples and be done with it. First there was the snide remark about supposedly people who are supposedly liberal and dedicated to justice on the ambulance chaser talk page. Then there was this self-righteous and despotic attitude of a couple of the authors here who claim to be liberal, champions of justice while attempting to quash the article. I've shaken my head and laughed in disbelief at much of the discussion here for what I've found to be hypocrisy. Most people, certainly I did, would consider that a flame. And look what it achieved. Don't tell me about my bad behavior, I am well aware of my shortcomings. Look at your own behavior. In the end, you can do nothing about anyone's behavior except your own.

law is fluid and completely open for interpretation. This is opinion and not accurate. Probably based upon anti-lawyer propaganda, certainly it is not based upon facts. Lawyers, and judges don't make up law out of their butts. Law is a very logical process and just as science is often a logical progression built upon previous theories, law is a logical progression built upon previous cases. Science builds upon experiments which are tested and repeated. Caselaw takes real life facts and categorizes the situation. Do these facts constitute a crime, a tort or a contract dispute? Within those areas, do they also fit into some specialized subset: Family Law, Property, Constitutional law, Employment, Anti-trust (such as it is these days), etc? Or do the facts, as is usually the case, overlap one or more of these areas? Once it is categorized, the rules are determined. The rules are the constitution, statues and existing caselaw. Is this something we have seen before? Good, we go to the controlling consitutional provision, statute, or exisiting caselaw apply the rule to the facts to reach a verdict. If the facts are something similar. but not the same, to what we have seen before, we look at the applicable rules and by applying logical extension of those rules we again reach a verdict and new, albeit minor, caselaw in the affected areas of law is developed. Then there is the case of first impression. Again the facts are categorized, the rules are applied as best they can, and a verdict is reached and major caselaw is developed/"invented". That's the general process. It gets refined as facts occur in real life. If the rule that was invented for a case of first impression turns out to be unworkable, rules will be modified until the rule is workable in any similar case. Cases of first impression are pretty rare. So law is as fluid as need be to take in new facts and circunstances, but it is not just one person's opinion as you implied (wittingly or not). Science is generally considered to be open minded enough to take into account new facts and cirmcumstances, although some things, like gravity are pretty well settled.

Science experiments are in a controlled laboratory, law experiments are in the wild- that is to say real life facts, people and situtations. Did you know that Courts will not give an opinion on theoretical questions? That's because they don't want some theory, they want facts. The nearest thing to an opinion on a theoretical case, is when a federal court submits a question of state (and not federal law) to the State Supreme Court and asks, if you were presented with the facts before us, how would you rule? The case may be theoretical, but the facts are real life facts. Federal Courts, BTW can only make caselaw within Federal law questions. But as I noted, most cases involve several issues, and then there is the constitutional right between parties of different states to have a "neutral" federal court hear the case as opposed to the state of origin of either party. This is called diversity jurisdiction. Federal Courts hate it, because it means they are asked to apply the rule of law from one state and they are not experts in that state's laws. It also clogs the docket. I digressed here, but what I want you to understand this can be very complicated, but it is always logical.

I'll wind up by responding to some of your specific questions directed to me and with a short conculson. I specifically noted Dali to quoted a blithering idiot because that is what happened and because I was specifically notsaying Dali was an idiot. I am assuming you asked this in good faith andnot in a troll like attmept to stir up trouble between me and Dali. I wasn't calling you a blithering idiot either. I was pointing out what the anonymous (and I am not going to look up who it was, Dali says he didn't originate the example and that is good enough for me) editor made what would sound like a resonable reform that most people would agree out of ignorance of what is the law actually is. You are an engineer, not a lawyer, ignorance here is reasonable. It is notreasonable to put ignorant statements in an enclyclopedia as the original poster did. And I will object, and edit both blatant and subltle ignornat errors. Ignorance is not an insult. I am ignorant of most things about engineering. I am not insulted if you tell me that. SUE YOU!? Talk about emotional over-reaction!!! Physician heal thyself! On what grounds? That's a rhetorical question, I don't expect you to answer. You have made several statements that I didn't consider well thought out. It tends to start flame wars and in real life can cause people difficulty with friends colleagues and strangers. I meant no more and no less.

In conclusion (yea!) you are educated, but you are not educated in all areas (neither am I). Its your ability to think logically that counts. But in areas of law, you are going to run into concrete due to your lack of knowledge, as I would in Engineering. In the end, treat this like I hope you are smart enough to treat your work related email. Be overly polite and cautious. It avoids office politics and flame wars. So lets start over and assume good faith. Gfwesq 15:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing on facts and law. Lawyers and judges don't decide facts when there is a jury. We let 12 people form a consensus as to what exactly the facts are. Judges only tell the jurors how the law applies to certain facts. Juries are the "finder of facts" and Judges "are the finder of law". Thus the legal system is very democratic in the sense that representatives of the people in the jurisdiction where the case is tried rule. Appeals Courts and Supreme Courts are bound by the facts as the jury found them, execept in extreme incidences where obvious prejudice (disregrad of evidence for whatever reason) shows from the court record. The one exception is a finding of innocence in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary in criminal cases. There is no appeal from that. But if you think about it, that makes sense tooGfwesq 15:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jgwlaw blocked for 3 days

You're mentioned. It's on AN/I. Tyrenius 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)