User talk:Jgwlaw:Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Jgwlaw:Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 11:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC) ╫

[edit] Interesting discussion

...at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Medicine-related_articles)#Suggestion.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 09:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overwrite

I was about to revert myself because I realised you had just removed a double up of the same post. Is this correct or are you saying you did something else? I find what you're doing very hard to follow. Also, why was the signature changed on this? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. I hope this clears up the confusion. This is more about WIkipedia guidelines on living people, but yes, I also removed a quote of the paragraph that violates WIki guidelines.jawesq 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The signature change was a correction. Gfwesq was still logged in, but I am not he.jawesq 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thankyou for explaining. It would be easier in future if you just wrote in the edit summary "removing per blp" or something like that so people understand what is happening. Otherwise it's very hard to follow. Also, FWIW, I have never agreed with the use of the word illegal and tried to remove it [1] myself. By the way, do you mean George William Herbert (from en-1)? If so, he is not an admin. You can check who is an admin here: WP:LA. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the kind words on my edits to the medical malpractice article. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G. Patrick Maxwell 1997 court case

I have deleted the material relating to this. Do not reinstate it. This is not an editing decision. It is removed to protect the Foundation. I am currently having dialogue with OFFICE over this matter. Contact me if you wish to discuss it. Thank you. Tyrenius 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 00:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I was referencing this edit, which was made to an archived talk page, which is something that shouldn't be done. New comments should be left on the main User_talk page.--digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Warning removed. --digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your conduct

I would be grateful if you would refrain from jumping to conclusions and casting aspersions on my competence without having the knowledge of why I took this particular action. It is a Wikipedia policy to assume good faith and you would be advised to study it. This is a warning. It is evidently not me, but you, who do not understand the issues, because there are aspects of this that you are not privy to. I am sure you will accept that my actions are in the best interests of protecting the Foundation, until such time as OFFICE is able to investigate this matter properly to establish a judgement. I should let you know that I am calling your own conduct into strong questioning, not only over this article but others, as well as your interaction with other users, which I consider extremely disruptive to the project and strongly undermining of both harmonious editing and the neutral point of view which is non-negotiable for articles. I advise you in the meantime to take the opportunity to demonstrate that you are willing and able to respect others and to be able to put your own strongly-held views to one side while you are engaged with editing wikipedia. Thank you. Tyrenius 00:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is currently no discussion to participate in. The matter is in the hands of OFFICE. I have removed any material which I thought prudent to do so for the time being. I am not concerned at this stage with who wrote it. I would be grateful if you refrain from making attacks, and not accuse me of "jumping on you". I have not contacted you since your return to wikipedia, after asking to leave the project only 10 days before and invoking the "Right to Vanish". It is you who have contacted me, making an attack on my competence. You were previously blocked not for sockpuppetry but for personal attacks and harassment, which you seem intent on sustaining — something which will lead to a fairly predictable outcome. Furthermore, I did not ban you repeatedly (I presume you mean "block" you). This is an emotive distortion which misrepresents my actions, and is exactly the kind of tactic you employ in dialogue with others, as I have mentioned above. In addition, please do not delete posts from this page or other talk pages, as you have in the past, and please do not amend posts once they have been left, as this misrepresents the record of what has occurred; it is considered vandalism. See TPG. Tyrenius 00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And probably I should have stayed away. This is absurd. The admin who asked me if I wanted to 'vanish' also told me I could come back. So this appears to be another problem you have with me, and not a legitimate complaint. You are continuing to inflame and do everything you can to harass - and yes, this long litany is harassment. Also, we (my husband and I) were obviously blocked for sockpuppetry, since that is what you stated. Y ou continued to accuse me of that, and defend your argument (poorly).
For you to suggest otherwise is dishonest.jawesq 00:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not stated your return is a problem. That is something you have assumed. I merely state it as a fact.

THEN WHY did you bring it up at all?jawesq 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You are inventing a scenario which does not exist. It is not a legitimate complaint, because it is not even a complaint in the first place. Please don't put words into my mouth. It is an unpleasant and unseemly thing to do. You are quite incorrect that I stated you were blocked for sockpuppetry. The block log states quite clearly it was for "Ongoing uncivil behaviour and personal attacks" as you can see from the extract below:

  • 11:15, 2 August 2006 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jgwlaw (contribs)" with an expiry time of 120 hours (continued incivility and personal attacks during block)
  • 11:14, 2 August 2006 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Jgwlaw (contribs) (unblock to extend block)
  • 17:34, 31 July 2006 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jgwlaw (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Ongoing uncivil behaviour and personal attacks after 2 warnings)

This is yet another misrepresentation of me, and as you say you are an attorney, therefore a person who is highly trained in precise terminology, I can only assume a deliberate misrepresentation in order to undermine me. It is unfortunately a tactic also in evidence in your dealings with other editors.

Yes, and I did not misrepresent you.

As you can also see, there was one block, which was extended. Your term "repeatedly" is also a misrepresentation. For the record, In the middle of this, you were at one stage blocked indefinitely by Pilotguy, as you informed him you were leaving the project, something which you quickly rescinded, and then later restated.

That has nothing to do with Pilotguy's 'block' which he immediately removed. This kind of dredging up everything you can to criticize me is exactly what I mean by your ongoing personal attack.jawesq 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius 01:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I can't be more informative about the Maxwell article at the moment. OFFICE, as I have mentioned, have been informed and I am awaiting their response. Please be patient till that comes. Thank you. Tyrenius 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baseless Sockpuppetry Accusation

I know what you (Tyrenius) reported-- but your heading on the AN/I page was SOCKPUPPETRY. Again, I believe it is deceitful for you to deny this. You accused me of sockpuppetry and continued to do so. Now this ongoing debate about what happened before is absurd, unless your goal is to trash my talkpage, which I am beginning to wonder about. And, I am not misrepresenting you. Furthermore, your conduct toward me has been exaggerated, mean and blatantly personal. I do see this as a problem. jawesq 01:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I have to point out your inaccuracy. The report on AN/I is here. It states "Jgwlaw blocked - Sockpuppet?" which is a question of something I wished to be examined further to see if it was the case, as two accounts, namely yours and User:Gfwesq were continually appearing in support of each other. You have sought to re-examine the previous circumstances. I am happy that my conduct towards you has been balanced, accurate and civil. Tyrenius 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That is your opinion. I consider your conduct anything but civil. And you continued to accuse me of sockpuppetry for NO reason. In fact, another editor I don't know even came on to protest your treatment of me. I found that very interesting.jawesq 01:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrenius

I am asking how to go about filing a complaint against an admin for abusing privilege/powers. This is not an insult, it is an inquiry. I would hope that Tyrenius would stop the continued personal attacks on me.jawesq 00:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is most likely not the appropriate venue for such a request. alphaChimp laudare 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Then where? jawesq 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You can draw attention to matters concerning admins on WP:AN in the first instance. Tyrenius 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be fruitless. I had in mind a higher level. But on the other hand, maybe it isn't worth it. From what I can tell, there seems to be no recourse against personal attack made by an admin. So I probably should not have come back to Wiki at all - it isn't worth the abuse.jawesq 01:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, there is WP:RFC and WP:ARBCOM. Tyrenius 01:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actually...

...what I said was you had a right to vanish, and that I was deleting your pages according to that request. I also said that another admin might replace the warnings, or override my deletion. I don't know any other particulars of things, but wanted to make that clarification. If there is anything I can do, let me know. Syrthiss 01:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That is correct - I did not know that was a possibility until you mentioned it, and I had decided to not come back. You also said to let you know if I wanted to reinstate or restore what you deleted. I took that to mean I had a right to return, as well. I reconsidered leaving, because I believed the dispute with Tyrenius over. Now realize that was a mistake. Tyrenius will not give up harassment of me, and it simply is not worth it. He is able to do this without consequence evidently because he is an admin. I emailed you privately to ask how to do this, sigh, a second time. I don't want to waste my time with bullies. And that seems to be what I have found here.jawesq 01:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal info

  • I need some info on a small legal matter. Can you tell me what the following phrase imply when it is written at the end of a court of appeal decision:
  • This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Thanks in advance for your help. NATTO 07:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)