User talk:FuelWagon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In case I disappear in the middle of the night, see this
or
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor
Contents |
[edit] Static information
[edit] vandalism in progress
click here to report vandalism in progress [[1]] Click once, and then you'll have to wait a few seconds. It takes a while.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
Add a new entry <== new entry for articles for deletion.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy {{subst:afd}}
[edit] wikipedia links
- The wikipedia Help page is here
- The wikipedia FAQ is here
- How to archive a talk page is explained here
- Wikipedia:Words to avoid Includes explanation of using "theory" and other words confused by editors.
[edit] NPOV Policy
- The NPOV policy appears to be the most misunderstood policy. Here are some good excerpts:
-
- "fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct." [2]
-
- "unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them." " Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them." [3]
-
- "If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject," [4]
-
- "Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source." [5]
-
- "the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true" [6]
-
- Pseudoscience: "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" "(some editors) believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy" "explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." [7]
[edit] Terri Schiavo
"Removed my name|it's too silly" was the edit summary by one of the Mediation editors. I'm dumbstruck. That takes real work. The self-centered, naked arrogance.... I'm going to bed.--ghost 03:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- (ghost's comment in reponse to SlimVirgin withdrawing from mediation: [8] Revision as of 03:15, 20 July 2005 SlimVirgin "removed my name; it's too silly".)
Stuff from my talk page moved by Uncle Ed to /block
More archives [9].
[edit] Intelligent Design
I have started to compile a series of notes around the intelligent design article here. FuelWagon 20:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I started an ID Wikiproject a few months ago. Not sure if you're interested in merging material or just use it to add other links to your page. David Bergan 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Congratulations
I acknowledge you for the clarity you have brought to the troublesome Landmark Education article. There has been more progress on that page in the last two days or so than in the whole of the last year and a half that I have been observing and sometimes editing it. No doubt there will be more edit battles to come, but we now have a clear structure and clear guidlines on what it takes to meet the NPOV and Citation of Sources policies.DaveApter 11:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, congratulations. I've been watching this article for months and have despaired for its future. You've made a significant improvement. Thanks for your careful work on this obscure and sensitive topic. -Willmcw 11:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish
I expect to be banned soon as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor. If that happens, don't bother posting messages to me here, since arbcom is proposing a minimum six months for a ban. There isn't much point checking my talk page if I can't reply for half a year. Feel free to use the "E-mail this user" link on the left, or click here, and maybe it'll work. Don't expect a reply soon, because there isn't much incentive to check my email either. So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish. FuelWagon 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A Ghost speaks
This is a copy of the email I sent Fuel after I heard of the ruling against him and Ed Poor.
- Fuel,
- I'm so sorry. I feel like I let you down. And I consider you a friend.
- For what it's worth, I never left because of the bullshit. I left because my job started demanding all my energy, other than what I refused to take from my family. But I feel like in doing so, particularly when you reached out to me, I failed you. I wish that I had been able to give you more.
- *deep cleansing breath*
- In spite of the crap, I pray that you won't let this tear you down. In spite of all the rancor, you are a quality writer and copy editor. In fact, I think so highly of your skills, I'd be glad to give you a personal reference on request.
- You and I are both passionate idealists. The world needs that. Unfortunately, when you force your will on the world around you, the world around you has a nasty tendency to push back. I've been hurt by that before, and I hope this hasn't hurt you too badly.
- May the Universe smile on you, always. And I hope you use the Holidays to spend some of that inner fire on yourself, you deserve it.
- Bright Blessings, Happiest Yule and Merry Christmas,
- Ghost
Wikipedia failed this User. Not the format, but the Wikipedia community. If you agreed with him, you may see a Cabal of Admins lording over the project. If you disagreed, you may see one bad User. Neither view is correct. Fuelwagon (and Ed) is an architype of the well-meaning, passionate User that loses their way. It is the responsability of the community to not let this happen, and we did. Thus we failed. I pray we learn to do better. For the project to succeed in the long-term, we must.--ghost 15:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia did not fail this user. Everything I've seen of his indicates that he was a vandal who did his best to incite flamewars. Interested2 14:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Final decision
The arbitration committee has reachead a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor case. Raul654 18:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I instituted the 6 month block as per the arbcom ruling's ban on you editing, I hope after the ban expires you will consider coming back to contribute. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Also, please remember that upon your return, you are allowed only one revert per article per week. Excess reverts carry blocks of up to 24 hours. 05:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories
I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article. Thank you. Blackcats 04:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Similar case to yours
I note that there is a similar case to yours against User:Marsden, but without the ArbCom. And there is a third case which I have documented in detail here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Note that all 3 cases involve basically the same people. I thought that you might find it, well, interesting. There may even be some way to combine the 3, plus some others if we can find them. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
