User talk:FuelWagon

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.

click here for refernce desk [[2]]

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)

Schiavo page

That's OK — I was probably a little testy when I left my final comment, as I'd spent a long time on the copy-editing, and found it all reverted three times. The third time broke (or, at least, put out) this camel's back. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI, to link to an external source, just put the URL in single square brackets: [http://www.google.com] comes out as [3]. - jredmond 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK Fuelwagon. I am sorry I have to be the person to break this to you, but yes, the courts are NOT infallible. They are not perfect. They too make mistakes. You seem to believe that what they deem to be a fact, must be a fact. This is not the case. I could list hundreds of errors made by our courts in the last decade, some minor but other major and fatal. But I will not waste my time. I have referenced you to Dr. Baden's remarks concerning Terry's strange collapse 15 years ago. Many others aside from him agree that Bulimia was not the only possible factor that could have caused this to her. Quit suppressing my edits; I am only trying to show that not everyone is in agreement with the court's decision. So when I say that "some" assert a particular view, instead of deleting, you should probably ask for a reference, huh? [[Gaytan 21:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)]]

Fuelwagon - I just came by to discuss your reverting my modifications regarding potassium and bulemia, and I see that this issue has been here already. My change today was based on the judge's wording, which was "apparently" the potassium imbalance caused the cardiac event. Also, the bulemia is a possible cause, even if she had it. So to state as a fact that her cardiac event was caused by the potassium imbalance, and couple that, as a fact, that bulimia was the cause of it all is wrong, I think. Wikipedia should be accurate, if it is to be respected. There was a story today about the New York Times quoting an incorrect Wikipedia article. Makes us look bad to say what we want the story to be, when we should be saying what is known and correct. In this case that means (1) "possibly" or "apparently" low potassium caused her problem, and (2) She may have had bulemia, but it is unconfirmed, and (3) Bulemia could have caused low potassium. Do you disagree with that? If so, please discuss, so that we don't end up doing reverts. Thanks. Tropix 05:13, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Thank you for replying on my talk page. I'm not sure if we are supposed to be talking on your page here, or mine. I agree that things need to be kept short, but not if facts are blurred together as I mentioned above. Do you have a problem with separating those three concepts above, which I think is important?

Also, I just reverted a deletion you made, but that is explained in my summary. The issue of denial of "natural means" feeding is quite relevant for many reasons, but does not appear anywhere else in this long article. I believe it belongs right at the beginning. Tropix 05:34, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

One more comment, responding to your suggestion for URL's. See URL #1, where I posted the original trial court order. I refer to it before editing or quoting. Tropix 05:40, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I changed your last edit of the timeline. Don't you agree that it is very useful for a reader entering the article to get an overview before moving into the details? This story is very complicated, and the summary doesn't use much space considering its value. Tropix 20:50, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I have sent you an email regarding the old intro summary that you have reverted to. My opinion is that you are saving space at the wrong point in the article. What is needed here is a short list of the critical points, which what was there before you deleted it. You have lost the link to the most important document in the history, the trial court decision, and the sense of time. Please restore the version you originally deleted. If you want to discuss editing it, fine. Tropix 22:32, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I don't understand your "sockpuppet" question. I editing here on exactly the same plane as you are. I log in just like you do. I explain my edits as clearly as I can. Can you explain what you mean as I am not familiar with the term. Whatever, I continue to disagree with you. The trial court decision, just like the other events in the timeline you deleted, are pivotal points in here life. I don't understand why you prefer a garbled version of them. The current introduction is poorly written, and is going back to a version that was discarded some time ago. Tropix 22:57, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Neurologists

Thanks for the heads up. I've been trying to add data, but I'm having difficulty acessing the site and I've lost a number of changes. In any case, I'll keep trying. --Viriditas | Talk 11:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zogby poll (Schiavo)

Rather than removing this poll outright, you should instead add proper context. If you feel that there are problems of the poll being unscientific, add that the poll has been challenged.

And note that no consensus has been reached on the talk page. Let's talk. We can compromise. Jdavidb 18:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tropix

Tropix is clearly an experienced Wikipedian and not a newbie by any sense of the term. If I had to guess, I would call him a sock puppet. His changes do not seem to be helping the article. --Viriditas | Talk 11:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)