User talk:Amorrow

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi, welcome to SourceWatch. Re server problems -- not sure when the problem your end was but sometimes the server goes down (but Jan is a quiter than normal month so load shouldn't be the problem). Was it occurring before you had registered and were posting via an unregisterd IP? (For future ref - if there is a delay in responding to you queries remember I'm in Australia). cheers -- 04:02, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

oops thgat was me - got logged out and got server error! --Bob Burton 04:21, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

Welcome to SW .. May I respectfully point out that correcting the spelling of someone's name, i.e. Terri as opposed to Terry, is NOT correct when so cited within a quote. Would you please return to your edits and undo your edits?

Your talk page is protected, so I will have to respond here. I did as you asked as best I could determine. The only reason I did so in the first place is becaue Randall Terry was the spokeman for Terri's parents, so the spelling matter when searching. In fact, you do yet mention Terry in the article. -- Amorrow 06:53, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

Additionally, an edit is welcome ... an edit with incorrect spelling makes work for others. Please check your edits by first using "Show preview" before "Save page". Thanks Artificial Intelligence 06:26, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

My typing sucks and I tend to make a lot of incremental saves. I am also getting a hopelessly large number of "Internal Server Errors" on your site, so I will not be a very active participant on this site. I suspect that either your server has a bad tuning problem or you are deliberately throttling how often save can be made to a page, so I am only going to visit infrequently. -- Amorrow 06:53, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

Sorry to hear that you are having problems. However, PLEASE check cited material before determining whether or not it is ACTUALLY a quote. In the case of the 'Rude Pundit' article, it did require going into the site's archived material but if you will take the time, the quoted material is there ... as a quote beginning with "So ...."

Additionally, poor typing skills require even closer scrutiny for errors. I also make numerous incremental saves as any number of errors on my part can cause me to lose minutes to hours of work. Cuts down on the cursing.

re Randall Terry .. he gets some star billing elsewhere: Marketing Terri Schiavo

Artificial Intelligence 07:00, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

Recommendation: Make one simple sentence at the end of the narrative material regarding "Terri" versus "Terry" ... the use by the media of Terry was an unintentional one and a logical conclusion as her given name was Theresa. It is not necessary to insert (sic) ad nauseum throughout the entire SW article .... readers can figure it out for themselves.

Artificial Intelligence 07:10, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

Point taken, but this is a special case. Terri Schiavo and Randall Terry, so I think that the "(sic)" in this one, special case is helpful. -- Amorrow 07:19, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

I refer you back to your own comment that Randall Terry's name is not mentioned in the main Terri Schiavo article. Therefore, cannot see where there would be any confusion for SW readers. A simple comment below the narrative will take care of your obvious concerns.

Also, re Randall Terry, please keep in mind that the article is about the events regarding Terri Schiavo and not Randall Terry's involvement with her parents and their interest in her situation. If that is something of interest to you, would suggest you create a separate article for it. Artificial Intelligence 07:34, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

There is no way that you can deny that the parents' choice of Randall Terry as their spokesman was DESIGNED to maximize the publicity in order to extend their daughter's life. He is a first-class tourblemaker and that is why they chose him: in order to completely polarize the political situation and get it to explode onto the national scene. It seems like a minor detail, but if you think about it, it is integral to the story.

As I suggested above, it would be appropriate for a separate article on this issue but in order to make your point, Randall Terry and information explaining his role would become the story here, overshadowing the SW article on Terri Schiavo. Please consider making this a separate SW, as it appears that the focus is shifting. Artificial Intelligence 09:41, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

I do not feel that I made a nuissance of myself with the seven words that I added to the article that mention Randall Terry's role. The seven additional words really do not overshadow the rest of this sizeable article now, do they? That is the elegance of the link: The reader can click on the link and find out more or the reader just move on. I really do not think that "Randall Terry's role as the Schindler's spokesman" justifies an article in and of itself. It would take seven words just to refer to the name of such a page. Even more if you were going to say "See" or "See Also" or something like that. I have striven for compactness. I suppose I am "connecting the dots", but there is no subliminal message. I am simply utilitizing the value offered by hyperlinking in the manner with which it was intended to be used. -- Amorrow 12:01, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

.... if one waits long enough, the old "tell" comes eventually. It would seem you are more interested in making sure Randall Terry is mentioned in the article than the names of Terri Schiavo's parents, which you have just now brought up. The Schindler's are not mentioned by name, but now Randall Terry is. Artificial Intelligence 12:29, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

You are so right. My point is to give the reader a clue about the larger historical context of this story as the pro-life agenda versus the pro-choice/right-to-die folks. I took up a lot of less room that the speculative Krugman quote. I would prefer the facts rather than someone's quotable soothsaying. Actually, I do expect this kind of thing to happen again. My point is: when you take a look at the pro-lifers that come out of the woodwork the next time; it is going to pretty much the same cast of characters. I do not think that Terry has a chance of winning a elected office in Florida, so I expect to see more of him later. Krugman is just a pundit. -- Amorrow 23:57, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

Wikipedia: User:Amorrow

A trip into the Wikipedia finds that -- tada! -- there just happens to be a user there named "Amorrow" who has been blocked indefinitely.

It appears that "Amorrow" has quite a history there -- accompanied by an agenda -- and one that would not be welcome here in SW:

User talk:Amorrow

For example, the History page on the Elizabeth Morgan article details the unpleasantness with which others were confronted.

In fact, a Google search for Amorrow + wiki found 269 records of "Amorrow"'s wiki adventures.

Hopefully, this is not you and this behavior will not be repeated in SW.

Artificial Intelligence 04:28, 21 Jan 2006 (EST)

One and the same. Ta da! There are a few dozen nosy people at W that gang up on anyone they can get their hands on in a lynch mob dynamic. It seems like there is only one such person at SourceWatch like that, so I suspect that I will be able to keep my cool. Plus, my time investment will be vastly less. BTW: That block occurred six months ago. I have had one other account blocked since then. The admin offered to unblock it, but I refused to beg for it, so now I am on a third account. No problems so far, but I am currently making a lot of noise on their Terri Shiavo talk page. -- Amorrow 04:33, 21 Jan 2006 (EST)

BTW: Elizabeth Morgan has a special talent for unpleasantness (or at least unpleasnat consequences for others), would you not agrree? That unpleasantness has a bad habit of being contagious. -- Amorrow 22:40, 21 Jan 2006 (EST)

for what it's worth

I just started to help on some of your pages and I am getting a lot of "Internal Server Error" responses. So many as to make it not worth continuing. I tried both I.E. and Firefox. Is there anything I can do to minimize this problem? -- Amorrow 03:41, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)

You mention that the problem occurs with both IE and FF. I am assuming you are using a winbox, and recent version sof the aforementioned browsers. Try uppin your time to live network setting. If you use a dial-up modem, you could also be having connection problems from your ISP to the SW server. BTW, the new Firefox is known to have an unresolved bug that causes extra network timeouts. Watch for any upgrades.

--Hugh Manatee 19:41, 22 Jan 2006 (EST)

While I have found your work on categorisation a welcome improvement in SW I wasn't amused when it was pointed out to me that you had edited out two sysops off the Admins list; I can only assume you left Artificial Intelligence off the list because you have had editing differences over the Terri Schaivo article. While we are reasonably easy going here I'm not prepared to tolerate provocative actions like that. Please respect the contributions of others --Bob Burton 14:39, 24 Jan 2006 (EST)

No worries -- no the admins list just hadn't been updated in a while. Sorry for misreading the changes.--Bob Burton 01:48, 25 Jan 2006 (EST)

User talk pages are for discussion of SourceWatch related work - not as a launching pad or parking spot for some Wikipedia related edit dispute. Please remove User:Amorrow/Wikipedia noticeboard to your own harddrive. If its not gone in 24 hours I'll delete it. --Bob Burton 23:55, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)

Ditto for Amorrow/Wikipedia TS index - an index of links to a Wikiepdia page in which you are involved in an edit war is hardly relevant to SW related work.-- 14:29, 12 Feb 2006 (EST)

oops - logged out - that was me --Bob Burton 14:30, 12 Feb 2006 (EST)

Hello, Amorrow,

Yup, it was me that deleted the Ann Heneghan article. Sorry if that messed up your work, but it seemed inappropriate for SourceWatch -- no links to it and no indication of why this pianist was someone who 'shaped the public agenda.' If you disagree, and think the information is appropriate for SourceWatch, please let us know.

best, Diane Farsetta 12:38, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)

Despite having previously warned you about using SW as a launch pad for disputes over Wikipedia articles or contributors you once more used SourceWatch for non-SW related work. Posting the Ann Heneghan in SW because it had been deleted over at Wikipedia clearly indicates you intend to keep abusing SW. I'm blocking you indefinitely from further contributions.--Bob Burton 19:57, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)