User talk:GeneMosher
Welcome!
Hi GeneMosher! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! --Flockmeal 01:22, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Welcome, as well. Can we talk about your additions to the anabolism article? Come to talk:anabolism and I'll show you how we discuss potential disagreements. alteripse 01:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:ViewTouch.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ViewTouch.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged imaged will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Michael 07:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
It's my work. I created it decades ago; I thought the image was appropriate. If it doesn't meet a standard somebody has set then I don't see that I have to care. Countless copies of my software paradigm cover the globe so if you want to erase this early image of my original work then go ahead - my history is all over the net already. I have to go now - a Tokyo newspaper wants a phone interview.GeneMosher 03:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
French Fries
For your information, I reverted an edit that you made to the John Roberts article concerning the schoolgirl who was arrested for eating a french fry on the Washington D.C. Metro. I don't read where she was invited to incriminate against herself for using or possessing illegal drugs. (Ted 23:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC))
- You're a little too lazy for me. Search Google for "Ansche Hedgepeth Drugs" and you'll find the report in the Washington Post. The police asked her if she had any drugs in her possession. There was no evidence that she did. They searched her and her backpack. They didn't find any drugs. To me it is clear that they asked her to incriminate herself. She couldn't actually do it because she wasn't guilty but that didn't stop the police from asking her if she was guilty of possession. GeneMosher 07:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I see you reverted it back, using a different wording this time. When I first made the edit, I was reading John Robert's opinion on the case, and saw that he didn't make any reference to any invitations to incriminate. It would've helped if you posted a footnote and link to the Washington Post article. Anywho, sorry for being too lazy. The rewording sounds better. From what I read in the article, she was simply questioned as to whether she had any alcohol or drugs. The last few times that I've been pulled over by a law enforcement officer, they always ask that question. It is a rather intrusive question, but she can't really admit to having drugs or alcohol if she does not actually possess any drugs or alcohol. (Ted 08:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC))
- I just want the truth. When a police officer asks if you are breaking any laws, that is an invitation for you to reject your Constitutional right to protection against incrimminating yourself. It's a very big deal to many of us that we should not have to reject our Constitutional rights as some sort of contribution to good citizenship or respect for law & order. The issue never was whether she had any drugs but rather whether her 4th & 5th Constititutional rights were violated. It is clear to me that they were, and Roberts' ruled that they weren't. I bet if it had been his kids then he would have ruled differently. GeneMosher 21:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)