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.

wikipedia links

The wikipedia Help page is here

The wikipedia FAQ is here

How to archive a talk page is explained here

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)

Ghost, that's a very generous way of saying this editor is a partisan hack. - LOL. Of course, but that's my style, my friend....If I give them enough rope, they'll save me the trouble of a hanging...--ghost 5 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)

Mediation

The request for mediation on the Terri Schiavo article is here.

I've been asked by ghost to step in as Mediator. How do you feel about that? And where (if anywhere) shall we discuss all this? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please meet me at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

NCdave

RFC on NCdave

I have filed a request for comment on NCdave. You can visit the page by going here. I have left this message on your talk page since you have been involved in the dispute resolution process regarding his edits in the past. Mike H 11:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Editor comments on NCdave

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)

As you saw, friend NCdave is back and has put the NPOV tag on twice. Be on the lookout for more of the same. I'm concerned about taking it out a third time. Duckecho 01:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I apparently I have a fan club. A W-a-M stalker is following me around and posting stuff addressed to me at other peoples' talk pages. I'm sure he'll do it here. I know you'll know how to handle it.

I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation#It's time to deal with the bully. I ask for your support.--ghost 19:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's Announcement

You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the Terry Schiavo article. Initial discussion is beginning at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 20, 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)

the New Yorker had an excellent piece on Intelligent Design a few weeks ago--I recommend it as a good read if you didn't catch it. (I actually haven't read the I.D. page on wikipedia though, so I don't know if it would be helpful.)--Mia-Cle 00:24, 16 Jun 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)

The goal of my edits was not to water down Democratic criticisms but to present the same criticisms in a more clearly neutral point of view. I'm actually sympathetic to the Democratic position in this debate, but that position is stronger when the points made are clearly neutrally stating facts rather than coming across (when read by someone who favors the nuclear option) as attacks or accusations. I think the article as a whole is superb and have directed people who don't understand why anyone would oppose the nuclear option to read the article. I'm just trying to look for statements that would be perceived as possibly biased in their presentation and restate them to convey the same information in a way that doesn't raise red-flags.

I would be very happy to coordinate with you to find mutually acceptable wording for statements you feel have been watered down. I'll kick some proposed wording out for you-- would you prefer that it be here or on the Nuclear Option talk page? --Naltrexone (talk)

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)

FW, "I'm goin in Maverick..."--ghost 18:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goethean's opinion

Since you seem to have it all figured out over there, perhaps you should spend your time there too. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

I ignored your last invitation to leave Wikipedia, but I did see it. In response, I suggest that you look into the very basic principles of civility that the Wikipedia requires for its members. I think that you're an asshole too, but I decline to attack you personally. Perhaps you should consider a similar approach. --goethean ॐ 7 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)

Schiavo, of course

Yo Fuel, you know I think you're the shit. That being said, maybe you could try and get your message across without all capitals and without swear words (or calling SlimVirgin a jerk and an asshole etc etc). Keeping it civil will give you a slightly better chance of getting your message across. Of course, if that doesn't work, then I think Wiki policy allows you to kill them. Proto t c 14:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What Proto the wise said. Fuel, we all know you mean well, and we know you're pissed about some of the things the new contributor wrote. She has certainly played a very significant role in escalating this, in a manner very unlike what one would expect from an experienced editor and administrator. However, the cursing might get you banned, which would be a loss to Wikipedia and all the projects you've worked on. Take a deep breath before you post next on the issue. I'll be saying my piece shortly.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 18:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I think that both SlimVirgin and yourself are valuable editors. With that said, how would you feel about removing personal attacks from the talk page? Just put a note in the summary field; I would much rather have you do it than someone else, plus it would show goodwill on your part. See Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks. --Viriditas | Talk 19:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin edit

SlimVirgin made a massive edit here.

SlimVirgin began editing at 15:11, inserted the "in use" tag at 16:42, removed the tag about 2 hours later, and then did her last edit at 18:38. Each individual diff is given here:

15:11 [2]

16:14 [3]

16:42 [4] "in use" tag

17:16 [5]

17:55 [6]

17:58 [7]

18:13 [8] "in use" tag removed

18:28 [9]

18:38 [10]

Duckecho and I both protest this massive edit on the talk page.

in this one diff, SlimVirgin simultaneously says There has been no massive edit while chastizing me you just reverted a couple of hours of copy editing.

I revert her edits.

After SlimVirgin's edit was reverted, SlimVirgin posted this If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk, and I will go through them with you. But do list them. Don't make unsubstantiated claims.

The entire conversation on the Talk page is contained in this diff, starting from SlimVirgin's first post to my last post. Duckecho and myself both posted many, many problems we had with SlimVirgin's edit. She did not conceed on a single point.

The list of issues with SlimVirgin's edits include the following:

---

regarding this diff: The embedded note that USED to be there said:

<-- This paragraph is a direct quote from Dr. Bernat's testimony before the U.S. Senate in April 2005. Dr. Bernat's testimony was approved by the AAN Executive Committee. The two links provided document the testimony and the AAN approval.-->

SlimVirgin deleted this embedded note, and then inserts into the same paragraph, an embedded note questioning the accuracy of the quote.

<--Is this true? I seem to recall a case in England where a man woke up after a long time in PVS.--><--What levels of "prognostic certainty"?:

---

"During this time, the Schindlers allegedly encouraged Mr. Schiavo to get on with his life, and he introduced them to women he was dating."

inserting the word "allegedly" might be technically not untrue, it casts a whole lot of doubt without any context. This statement about dating was reported by a guardian ad litem to the court. It is the guy's job to get the facts right, not present one pov. I can't recall, but I'm prety sure the guardian ad litem did not use the word "allegedly" in his report. and as far as I know, the Schindlers never challenged that statement at the time, either. Though I believe they may have challenged it much (years?) later, when they were willing to challenge anything possible. There's a URL right by that line with an embedded note saying <-- quoting from page 11 of 38 of Wolfson report -->, in case anyone was wondering where the "alleged" statement came from.

---

The noise awoke Michael Schiavo, and he called 911 emergency services. <--I'm deleting "immediately" wherever I find it, because it's journalese and usually unverifiable, not because I think it wasn't immediate.-->"

Govorner Bush launched an investigation specifically into whether or not Michael called 911 "immediately" or whether there was foul play on his part. The DA recently dropped the investigation saying Michael's story was consistent and that the cause of Terri's collapse was probably cardiac arrest.

---

"(PVS), according to seven neurologists who examined her, or a minimally conscious state (MCS), according to one other."

The dissenting neurologist suggested "therapies" that the court dismissed as quackery. If this neurologist is included in the intro, then his diasnosis as MCS needs to include the fact that his therapies are questionable.

---

Before: In March 1994, guardian ad litem John H. Pecarek was appointed by the court to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. Pecarek's report found no evidence for any inappropriate actions, and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to his wife. <--Do not remove Pecarek's statement. It is quoted in several court orders and GAL reports, however Pecarek's report is unavailable on the internet. -->

SlimVirgin's Edit: In March 1994, guardian ad litem John H. Pecarek was appointed by the court to determine whether there had been any abuse by Mr. Schiavo. Pecarek's report found no evidence of any inappropriate acts, and indicated that Mr. Schiavo had been attentive to his wife. <--attentive? did he actually use this word?-->Mr. Schiavo remained his wife's guardian.<--Might it be worth explaining the sense in which he remained her guardian when there were court-appointed guardians?-->

an informative embedded note is deleted (the one saying the statement from Pecarek is QUOTED in several court orders but NOT available directly on the internet). And it is replaced by a question of accuracy "Did he really use that word?"

---

Before: Other neurologists — Drs. Jeffery M. Karp, James H. Barnhill, and Thomas H. Harrison — also examined Mrs. Schiavo over the years and made the same diagnosis; they also shared a very poor opinion about her chances for recovery.

SlimVirgin Version: Other neurologists — Dr. Jeffery M. Karp, Dr. James H. Barnhill, and Dr. Thomas H. Harrison — also examined Schiavo over the years and made the same diagnosis, which entailed a poor prognosis.

changed the emphasis on the second half of the sentence from "all shared the opinion of poor chance for recovery" to "Terri's chances for recovery were poor", but it's no longer clear that this is something that all the doctor's believed.

---

Neuroscientist posted a good, detailed response to some problems he had with SlimVirgin's edit here.

---

Despite this laundry list of problems, SlimVirgin has NOT ONCE conceeded that there is ANY PROBLEM with ANY PART of SlimVirgin's ENTIRE EDIT.

SlimVirgin accusations

SlimVirgin made a number of unsourced accusations on the talk page against me

---

SlimVirgin wrote "But I feel that FuelWagon and Duckecho are POV pushing too by insisting, for example, that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro."

Although I told SlimVirgin I never said any such nonsense, SlimVirgin has to date not apologized for such a gross distortion of facts. FuelWagon 21:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

---

SlimVirgin wrote It appears that a small group of editors, currently consisting of User:FuelWagon and User:Duckecho have taken ownership of this page and won't allow others to edit without their consent. This isn't allowed.

This was in response to SlimVirgin's massive edit, discussed above with all its problems. I reverted SlimVirgin's edit because of all the problems listed above. And rather than admit it's a bad edit, SlimVirgin accuses me of "taking ownership" of the article. Fixing a bad edit === ownership???? FuelWagon 21:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No acknowledgement of this accusation being false, misplaced, or otherwise misdirected has been forthcoming. FuelWagon 21:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Here, SlimVirgin accuses me of violating NPOV and "No Original Research".

Neither one of which were something I violated. I haven't acted neutral towards SlimVirgin, but I am not neutral towards any edit that makes the article worse. I have been completely NPOV towards the article. And I have no clue where the "No Original Research" violation came from. SlimVirgin seemed to be throwing hand grenades at this point.

No apology from SlimVirgin has been forthcoming. FuelWagon 22:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

---

another unsourced accusation from SlimVirgin is here: Thank you Fuelwagon, I know what PVS is. The prognosis is always poor, but at the beginning it's more hopeful than after months and years. You're arguing now for the sake of it.

However, the article contains a quote from the American Neurological Association which describes PVS: The prognosis for recovery of awareness in PVS has been quantified, and, in general, the prognosis depends on the cause and duration of PVS. It is worse after cardiac arrest and after a long duration of PVS. Patients remaining in PVS for greater than three months after cardiac arrest have only a slight chance of recovery of awareness. Recovery of awareness is unprecedented after two years. With head injury causing PVS, the times necessary to show these levels of prognostic certainty are one year and five years, respectively.

Therefore, depending on the patients condition, the chance of recovery could be slight or unprecedented, which means SlimVirgin's assertion that "the prognosis is always poor" is outright wrong.

I wasn't arguing for the sake of arguing, the edit made by SlimVirgin was wrong. The argument made by SlimVirgin to defend SlimVirgin's edit was a gross oversimplification.

No correction from SlimVirgin has been forthcoming.

---

After Neuroscientist posted his list of issues with SlimVirgin's edit, SlimVirgin replied to Neuroscientist with this.

SlimVirgin mentions that prior to coming to the article, SlimVirgin got the impression of bullying or system-gaming on Duckecho's part. So SlimVirgin came to the article with prejudice.

SlimVirgin accused Duckecho and myself of being "two editors taking control of edits".

SlimVirgin defended her edits explaining "I decided to try to improve the page, at least by getting the sources sorted out," however, she never explains why she deleted the embedded notes with source information, rather than rolling them into the article.

SlimVirgin once again accused that "FuelWagon and Duckecho began blind reverting". Apparently, the laundry list of problems listed above constitutes "blindness" on my part.

SlimVirgin then accuses Neuroscientist: "I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me." No such comments were made by Neuroscientist.

I'm starting to get the distinct impression that we're dealing with a persecution complex. SlimVirgin accuses everyone of launching personal attacks against SlimVirgin if the editor does not wholeheartedly agree with SlimVirgin's edits.

I am currently blocked

SlimVirgin made a massively bad edit and a number of false accusations against me.

I swore at SlimVirgin on the talk page, mostly when SlimVirgin accused me of something I didn't do, or put words in my mouth that I never said. Oh, or when SlimVirgin deleted informative embedded notes and replaced them with embedded questions that would have been answere by the original embedded note. Yeah, I swore on the talk page, but I never accuse someone of something they didn't do without apologizing. Pick your poison.

Viriditas asked me to tone it down, so I went through and removed any cuss words [11] [12] [13] [14]. Viriditas then asked me to take out EVERYTHING that wasn't directly related to an edit on the main article. I was about to do that when I discovered I had been blocked from wikipedia for 'unrepentent personal attacks' by Uncle Ed. Uncle Ed has no email, so there is no way for me to contact him.

For SlimVirgin's efforts at bad editing and false accusations, SlimVirgin is currently active.

SlimVirgin also happens to be an administrator, which, apparently has its perks, not the least of which is never having to say your sorry for unrepentant bad edits or unrepentant false accusations.

I'll let everyone know when I'm back online.

The current blocked list is here.

FuelWagon 22:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

interesting edit

SlimVirgin at 18:06, 12 July 2005 declares I'm therefore withdrawing from editing this article, I hope only temporarily, until I decide whether it's appropriate to approach this as an admin, or whether to pursue dispute resolution as an editor. here

from Blocked List, Ed blocked me on 21:02, 12 July 2005

I make an edit to my talk page Revision as of 21:29, 12 July 2005 here

Revision as of 21:41, 12 July 2005 by SlimVirgin: Ed, regarding your block at 21:12 of FuelWagon (talk · contribs), he's continuing to edit with the same user account despite the block. See his contribs and particularly his comment here. [15] posted on Ed Poor's talk page

in short:

18:06 :: SlimVirgin declares "I'm withdrawing as an editor to decide if I want to approach this as an admin".

21:02 :: Ed Poor blocks me.

21:29 :: I post to my talk page

21:41 :: SlimVirgin is not only aware that I had been blocked a mere half hour prior, but has been tracking my contribs and sees me posting on my own talk page and complains to Ed Poor.

And I just gotta wonder how much back-channel communication goes on between admins. Hey, SlimVirgin, did you know I got blocked because you were the one who requested it? Hey, Ed, did my attempts to tone down my posts by taking out the swear words really qualify as "unrepentant"?

Ed Poor

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Ed Poor.

You can email Ed Poor or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

ok, click on email Ed Poor

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

(swell)

administrators info

Administrator abuse

Administrators can be removed if they abuse their powers. Presently, administrators may be removed either at the decree of Jimbo Wales or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers. The technical ability to remove administrator status rests with the stewards.

Dealing with grievances

If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you should express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible. Try and come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, you can take further action according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There have been a number of alternative procedures suggested for the removal of sysop status but none of them have achieved consensus.

OKEY DOKEY. Let's see how that goes. I just sent the following email to SlimVirgin: FYI: I've been blocked by Uncle Ed. The list of problems in your edit and the list of false accusations you made against me on the Terri Schiavo talk page are listed on my personal talk page. FuelWagon 03:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hm, so far, not so good. I sent the email on 3:26, and this shows that SlimVirgin has made 11 different edits over the last couple hours since I sent the email, none of which have anything to do with the email. Although, it is possible that her email is separate from wikipedia, and she checks it rarely. Will check again tomorrow. FuelWagon 06:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Administrator Perks

I'm starting to get the distinct impression that one major perk of being an administrator is never having to admit you're wrong, never having to admit you made a bad edit, and NEVER having to apologize for your behaviour.

Please list admin errors, bad edits, and misbehavior here. I will look into it for you. (By the way, I make errors every day, including bad edits, and have had to apologize quite frequently.) Uncle Ed 10:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Note

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. FuelWagon 06:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

One word of advice. To participate in a volunteer project, you have to be more concerned with making the project succeed, than you are about "being treated fairly". In my 3 1/2 years at Wikipedia, I've never been blocked.

When others disagree with my edits, I've argued, debated, made points, tried different formulations, etc. But I haven't attacked other users of this web site.

I have not been overly stubborn about versions of articles, because I have no particular axe to grind. All I care about is the neutrality of this encyclopedia. So, if an article presents a point of view, which I disagree with, in a favorable light, I don't care, as long as sufficient mention is made of other point of view.

The whole country (Amercia) was upset about Terry Schiavo's situation, and she's only one person. Did you know that there are millions of people who die each year from starvation and easily preventable diseases? Do you know how many people have been murdered by their own governments? I have the good fortune to have been born in a country whose government is literally "for the people" (in Abraham Lincoln's words) rather than for the benefit of the ruling class. And this government sponsored the creation of the Internet, which you and I are now using to communicate with each other and share our knowledge with the world.

I personally asked the programmers who created the MediaWiki software to give blocked users the ability to edit their own talk page, just so that a block wouldn't be so hard on them. Please use this time to tell the Administrators of this web site what contributions you plan to make to this encyclopedia. Uncle Ed 10:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)