User talk:FuelWagon

Click here to leave a message on my talk page

vandalism

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 links

The wikipedia Help page is here

The wikipedia FAQ is here

How to archive a talk page is explained here

Wikipedia:Flat earth problem

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]

Terri Schiavo

You have the patience of a saint, my friend. You're an inspiration. I have a far lower frustration threshhold than you apparently do. Keep up the good work. --AStanhope 21:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FuelWagon, for reformatting my Let's go sentence by sentence post. Given the size the talk page now is, that'll sure make any contributions easier for the users. Duckecho 16:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"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".)

I will now commence chuckling and knee-slapping Just wanted to let you know that I am officially appropriating the phrase "Whack-a-Mole logic game" for my own use, that is excellent. Been trying to think of a succint way to describe NCdave's style of debate for a while now.
Fox1 08:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(And the "whack-a-mole logic game" is brilliant.)Mia-Cle 01:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stuff from my talk page moved by Uncle Ed to /block

More archives [9].

Fuel, I awarded you something I feel you deserve. In re the current block, I hope it's not permanent, and I also hope you don't take things too much to heart. This is only an online encyclopaedia and community, after all. All the best.~ Neuroscientist | T | C ? 06:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Oh, and dude. You gotta tone down the cussin. Lol.~ Neuroscientist | T | C ? 06:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar, you big sexy pimp. Proto t c 09:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Mahalo for the barnstar. Your dedication on Terri Schiavo and weathering of the various conflicts is commendable. Aloha nui loa. --Viriditas | Talk 03:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I admit to my own POV on Intelligent Design (I'm neo-Pagan), so having another Wikipedian that I know telling me when I'm being stupid would be very helpful. I respect your work on all things Terri Schiavo, and hope I can enlist your help.--ghost 21:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In the future, refrain from deleting my comments. --goethean ॐ 04:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I vaugley recall stepping on your toes rather hard a while back involving Dbergan and Goethean. I apologize.--Tznkai 14:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

figured as much. Still, always better to apologize than not IMO--Tznkai 16:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear option

I'm sorry to say the usefulness of that article has decreased since the recent edits of User:Hbomb and User:Ed Poor (beginning around May 12). It is confusing, and it seems to intentionally obscure the basic facts of the maneuver. --CSTAR 20:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'll take a look at it. I found some good stuff on the reaction to "THE DEAL" made on Monday, and I'll add it at some point. Dave (talk) 04:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fuel, double-checking before I jump in. Did you get my response? Is the invite still open, or should we discuss it further?--ghost 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

scientific method url

A good url, short, sweet, and to the point FuelWagon 19:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

All out of good faith

After this, [10] I can no longer assume any good faith of you. You're showing that you have a lot in common with Rangerdude by going on and on and on about something that should never have been an issue in the first place. I see your edits to the RfC page and the blocking policy proposal as dangerously close to WP:POINT. You say you want to defend yourself, but in fact all you do is attack, and then you wonder why people criticize you back. That's all I'm going to say to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)